It’s necessary for the next step in human society in a post scarcity world
I have made the argument to the “think of the economy” Republicans I have known for years, and come at it from a relatively heartless angle:
With automation (and now AI), it takes less and less humans to do the work. Not everybody can “start their own business,” obviously, and when self-driving vehicles that don’t require a human driver become effective and accepted, about 70 million jobs will disappear in a blink. And those won’t be shifted to another industry, because it doesn’t take 70 million people to code and maintain self-driving vehicles. And that is just the people who drive for a living. So either a significant chunk of the population is unemployed and can’t buy things or live anymore without significant help from the government anyway, or everybody works less hours (and still paid a living wage) to spread out the available work hours.
If there is a UBI that effectively covers shelter and food, then people would need to work less to pay for other necessities and what luxuries they can afford. If everybody gets it, it is completely fair.
And you do this by taxing the shit out any automation (enough that the business still gets a benefit, but so does the society they are taking jobs from), and taxing billionaires.
This isn’t about taking care of the sick or poor, or providing handouts, it’s about maintaining society with the rise of automation, and it not being possible without it.
Those I spoke to were remarkably receptive to that argument.
I like negative income tax better. Basically you declare an amount that is the basic amount someone can live on, I.e. £20k and if you earn less than that your income is topped up by other tax payers. This has the advantage of high tax payers not being given a payment every month that they don’t need.
The downside of it is that means testing still requires some amount of beaurocracy. That means you’d be unable to completely axe the department of work and pensions (DWP) for example here in the UK. My understanding is that you could do universal basic income and pay everyone in the UK £1000 per month and those costs would be totally offset by no longer having to finance the DWP so it’s a budget neutral policy in terms of government spending.
Yes
Good
no
I would vote for it, because it seems nice and I don’t see myself sitting still regardless, just that I’d choose more fulfilling / societally beneficial work if there weren’t this idea of needing to provide and work with market forces. But then it came up with my cousin and she said she’d do fuck all, travel, spend time horse riding or whatnot, anything but work because why bother. Less anecdotal studies show cautiously positive results (or exceedingly positive in misleading headlines until you open the study and find two sides to the coin), but afaik have so far been very limited in both scale and duration. So idk but it seems at least worth a real try. Do we always need to have strong opinions?
“Do we need to have strong opinions?”
Well, I did phrase it that way intentionally. I’d like to hear compelling reasoning from both sides. Typically the stronger your opinion the more compelling a case you’ll be able to make. I like it in theory, I think. But I’m not an economist and I like lots of really stupid shit in theory. So I don’t know, but I’d like to hear from people who do or at least think they do.
She… realizes it’s a basic income, right? Traveling is not going to be fun or affordable unless she does it hobo style.
It’s all about the hedonsitic treadmill.
For those struggling to survive… UBI would benefit them.
But for those who are higher on the treadmill and seeking leisure above all else (like your example)… UBI would just allow them to be more of a mooch/loser than they already are inclined to be.
I’ve def met tons of people who basically only work because it means they have lots of money to spend on leisure. These are the same people who have very bad finances, despite having often high paying jobs. They don’t seek to use income to benefit their life in a more long term way… everything is short term hedonistic impulsive pursuits and they only ‘work’ because they have to pay off the debt.
So nothing would really change for them, right?
They’d get UBI, but it wouldn’t cover their lifestyle. So they’d still be working to support that, no? And UBI would just mean they have a safety net?
My opinion is that our politicians would prefer fascism.
Progressive taxation rate that can go negative (aka people can receive money) is more fair.
Could even be easier to implement because it is not only a “social” benefit that cost tax payers money. That could help convince some people.
That has problems too ….
- Do you need to work to get your income, because how else you filing income tax
- income taxes are once per year: what if you have financial disaster after April 15?
- there’s a needy segment of the population where filing tax forms is unlikely or impossible.
Nothing against it.
But, there has to be sacrifices for it to work. That being, SNAP and Welfare would have to be axed to make room for UBI. Medicare would remain.
And I would want it available for a certain threshold of earners. Like people who’re making $0 - $2,000 a month. If you’re well off, then it’s not for you.
Someone did a study on various means of welfare support, and figured out that doing away with all other forms of poverty easement and replacing it with an equivalent amount of UBI would actually save taxpayers a significant amount of money. And further, it actually costs way more to try to identify and prosecute fraud than the system actually loses to said fraud.
I think the easiest way to accomplish UBI, without dealing with a lot of rigamarole and nonsense, would be to figure out what amount “basic” should mean—you suggested $2000/mo, but for some cities that would barely cover rent, so maybe let’s say $3000/mo—and then have anyone who wants any form of government financial assistance register with the UBI office, indicating the compensation they receive at their highest-earning job. The UBI office would then simply pay them the difference between $3000 and their monthly paycheck. UBI office automatically cross-references with the IRS every year, so you can’t hide income without getting audited.
Yes regarding welfare and snap, but not regrading things like healthcare assistance programs.
deleted by creator
I mean thats kind of a good thing? And it’s right in the name? Universal Basic
UBI should be enough to comfortably survive - at least enough to cover food and shelter (with associated costs ie electricity/water/heat)
Working a job while on UBI would pay for enrichment type stuff - vacations night at the movies etc.
As it is now working doesn’t guarantee any of the 1st category that UBI should/would cover never mind the 2nd.
Yeah I’d agree with what you’ve said.
This is false
Wish I knew what was said. Hoping the person just decided to delete it and it wasnt removed by a mod.
They said it doesn’t work because people who don’t work would receive the same amount of money as people who do. My view says they deleted it themselves.
And they were right. That’s why it’s called universal basic income, everyone gets the same amount (well, probably adjusted based on cost of living, but ideally the same). What they’re implying is not correct, that everyone will get an amount that they’ll be happy with. Those that work and get UBI will be both comfortable and secure if things go wrong. Those who can’t or don’t want to work (maybe for a period of time, maybe they’re just done with working) will have enough to “basically” survive. No one is getting rich off UBI, but everyone will be better off that isn’t now.
The real important thing that UBI can bring is making companies have to do more to convince people to work for them. Get rid of health insurance tied to the workplace (like with single payer) and then they have to offer real benefits and good working conditions. They’ll fight it screaming and kicking too, they like how workers have to play their game and take what they’re willing to give, not the other way around.
Sorry for the long diatribe. I guess I have strong feelings about it.
No need to apologize, I asked because I was looking for passionate answers
This is what I value most about UBI – the leverage on workers; the flexibility to take time to rest and explore other, more fulfilling careers.
My wording was not correct for what I meant say. Everyone might get the same, but people who work would have MORE money than people don’t.
Conceptually I’m 100% for it. In reality I’m sure theres going to be unintended consequences that im not seeing.
If it can be made to work like it sounds like it should, we need it and we need it bad.
Unintended consequences, or just ones you aren’t aware of?
There’s lots of known things that will happen, both good and bad.
- A significant de-urbanization would be likely, similar to what we saw with remote work during COVID
- There would be a drop in certain types of crime
- A small chunk of the population would become absolute shut-ins, and likely become very mentally unwell
- Divorce would probably go up
- The birth rate would likely also go up
I think I’d rather see a realistic minimum wage. But regardless of UBI or min wage, none of it will be worth much if things like medical care, education, child care, housing costs, etc. don’t get brought under control. The leeches will just jack up prices for more record profits.
We have a realistic minimum wage, but not everything that needs doing generates enough income to pay it. Taking care of your elderly mother as the simplest example but also firefighting apparently. It regularly blows my mind how much is done by volunteers. We could do so much more if you knew life’s basics were going to be covered regardless of how you help society
It would make reporters stop bitching about the economy and help keep things afloat.
People can buy groceries when they have the money to do so. They may even have a little extra to buy a candy bar, or a gadget or coffee to also boost the economy.
It would allow people to be more productive since stress destroys your ability to function properly.
And most importantly: nobody should worry about a roof over their head or where their next meal is coming from.
Agreed
im FOR IT
Same
It would make many people more happy and less stressed, so why shouldn’t we do it?
I guess I do. I’m mostly in favor but not like super firm about it. Except in the context of as automation reduces the amount of work needed I believe it’s one of only a few options without which society is at serious risk. The other main option is to drastically reduce working hours without changing pay to increase number of jobs. I actually prefer the latter.
