Yes. I’m opposed.
Simply saying “everyone should get enough money from the government to live” has a lot of problems. The most obvious being that cost of living varies substantially from one place to another. And peoples needs vary substantially as well. So where do we set the number?
You’ll also need to figure out how to combat the massive inflationary effects that would occur.
But imo, the biggest issue is what happens in the long term. Say a nation gives its citizens a UBI. Now wait 100 years. What happens? Well what happens is that, assuming this doesn’t collapse the economy some other way, and assuming this is a democratic nation, everyone will start taking UBI for granted, and will start thinking “you know, if only I had a little more free money, I could afford that nice shirt I saw my neighbor wearing yesterday…”. And because “free money for everyone” will be a popular political platform, the UBI amount will go up and up and up, with little thought put into how to continue funding it. The government accrues more and more debt over time funding the program, until finally the government can no longer continue paying its debtors, and the country collapses into chaos.
Instead, I’m in favor of a citizen’s dividend, which is tied to the nation’s economic output. A good example is how Alaskans get a dividend, since they agreed to allow private companies to extract the oil from their state. Land value taxes could work like this. Carbon taxes could work like this. If you want to make sure everyone is fed and housed, then that is a very noble goal - but it should be accomplished by providing people with food and housing. And I think it is right and fair that the people of a nation should be compensated for the use of their land and the negative externalities they endure - but how much they are paid out should not be coupled to the cost of living. It should be well known to be an independent, unpredictable, and highly variable amount that they can’t rely on, so that they never gain the expectation that they will always have endless free money to spend however they please.
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?
It took me a while to come around to the idea. I believed in small American business long after it was dead. Always suspected that we would eventually regulate in favor of it again.
After studying the financial engineering done from 2008-2025 and the immense wealth concentration it created I think UBI helps the problem. As wages become more suppressed and jobs become fewer, we do need to examine our social safety nets again.
I think the only thing I disagree with about UBI is that all of us become somewhat dependent on the government. Will that make us more active participants in government? Currently, most people’s retirement funds are based on the S&P 500, and when it comes time to vote, they will always vote to protect their retirement funds in the S&P 500. This is part of the trap. We’ve been dealing with it during the financial engineering of the last two decades.
UBI would certainly strip powers from some and give some dignity back to many, but it becomes a beast in itself that must be managed with the integrity that our country hasn’t been managed with for decades. So idk! I think they need to figure out universal healthcare before universal basic income. One will help structure the other.
Yes. When 10 people control more wealth than the rest of us combined while families working 60+ hours a week cant put food on the table. Then yes, the system is rigged against the middle class and we deserve a fighting chance
Yeah. I should definitely get it, and a lot of it. In fact, more than the rest of most scrubs. Ill do cool ass shit. I already do cool shit, and with more money, I could do more and even cooler shit.
Sponsor my cool shit and I will give you cool shit in return. DM me for my cash app.
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.
That’s absolutely unfeasible and unacceptable. Everyone gets $30K a year over 18. It’s not like the money is not there. We have it. There are just too many parasitic billionaires hoarding it and billionaires should not exist.
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
That and many jobs will be automated. The next five years will be brutal. The sudden rise of surveillance is one way they attempt to control the fallout as the current working units (us) are decommissioned.
