Universal basic income (UBI) has supporters across the political spectrum. The idea is that if every citizen received a payment from the state to cover their living costs, it this will allow them the freedom to live as they choose.
But voters who turned down a UBI pilot in a recent referendum in the German city of Hamburg apparently found something to dislike. A frequent argument against UBI is that recipients will decide to work less. This in turn will make labour (and consequently labour-intensive products) more expensive.
Indeed, a recent study on a UBI experiment has found that recipients of an unconditional monthly transfer of US$1,000 (£760) were significantly less likely to work. And if they did work, they put in fewer hours than a control group who received only US$50 per month.
You literally didnt read my comment. Are you arguing that 400$ income family will spend 1400$ after inflation hits? So a 2000$ income family will need 5000$ for their current lifestyle? Thats just nonsense.
I could paste my whole comment again explaining that UBI is not supposed to raise the standard of living for everyone, its supposed to shift from rich to poor, but you wont read it anyway so I wont bother anymore.
Enjoy the holidays.
Giving everyone a “basic income” does nothing to shift wealth from rich to poor. You are thinking of just standard redistributive welfare, which is a great policy to achieve that, if implemented correctly and fairly. UBI is something very different from this, for a very different purpose. Read up on political economics to learn more about it.
If you cant see how UBI has a bigger benefit for the poor than the rich, I dont even know what we are discussing here. Certainly not UBI.