It’s bad because people are selfish. Unless it’s a really low amount, if it’s an amount enough to live, then some people won’t work. That might include me. I’m a rat.
I think that’s ok
I also think that it’ll probably be a lower amount of moochers than you expect; they’ll want to work, but it’ll be doing things that our current society doesn’t recognize as work, or work of value.
It’ll be things like philosophy, art, poetry, tinkering, etc, which actually make life better for people but are difficult to turn into a profitable business.Who will do the useful work then? Like making food, repairing machines, doing office stuff?
Also, these people probably now aren’t doing their job well. And I strongly believe doing your job badly does more harm to society than it helps.
It will never happen.
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.
Of all the capitalists bitching about higher taxes and how UBI will destroy businesses, they keep forgetting that people are more willing to buy shit when they don’t have to worry about rent.
it would allow me to try earning money or study without worrying about being punished for failing
Only works if we limit the amount of wealth single persons are allowed to hoard.
I say that anyone with a networth over 10M should have all other income over that taxed 100%
Same for companies, cap them at 1 billion
This will allow capitalism yet spread the wealth
Yes, this requires more details, of course, but this should be a basic rule. There is no right to own more than 10 million in wealth
I generally agree, but rather than making it a specific number, I think we should tie it to some multiple of the poverty line or the average income of the lowest 10% or something like that. That way, if the rich want to earn more, they have to make things materially better for the poorest people in society; and if they don’t do enough, the government takes that money to do it for them.
The wealth cap should be tied to a multiple of the UBI. A person or corporation wants to be allowed to get even richer? Then they can campaign to raise the UBI amount for everyone.
If, as they claim there’s enough left to go around and they are paying enough taxes, then it’ll be simple to raise the UBI amount.
im FOR IT
Same
not really, no
Yes, I strongly believe we should have it.
Yes
Good
The problem is that people with a job will get as much as someone with no job and doesn’t depend on income from direct job
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.
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.
No need to apologize, I asked because I was looking for passionate answers
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.
I support it and think it could work. It would make people more happy and free, while removing a lot of unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy from our current welfare system.
Id agree, especially with the growing use of AI. I don’t think anyone knows fully how many jobs will disappear but we do know it wont/isnt zero.
It’s necessary for the next step in human society in a post scarcity world
No conversation about UBI is complete without also discussing the source of the funds and how other government programs might be effected.
I think UBI sounds great on the surface but I worry that it could alter our basic survival incentives which may have unintended consequences for the group of people who aren’t needing UBI.
Should UBI replace existing food and housing programs? Should UBI replace other things that are designed to mold the economy such as subsidized public transportation or small business loan guarantees? What about income tax incentives designed to encourage saving and growing money carefully versus consumption (capital gains versus income tax, tax-deferred retirement savings accounts).
I suspect there’s a fairly significant carry-on effect from shifting resources away from these types of programs to a UBI program. But what I’m not clear on is how that might impact other behaviors from well resourced people who may start to play the game, so to speak, by a new set of rules.
For example, do we see inflation around inelastic needs such as rent prices and grocery bills? If we did, UBI is not much more than a grocery store/landlord stimulus program. It’s hard to imagine that we wouldn’t see this unless controls are placed on those businesses which in turn, removes incentives to own and grow businesses.
It seems like a UBI program would promote an economy based on consumption and not on savings and investment. Why save your money if you’ll get topped up again next month, and every month for the rest of your life? By investment I’m not talking about Wall Street, I’m talking about finishing college degrees, investing in new ideas, chasing startup ideas, those people who stay up late at night working on inventions that they think could bring them rewards.
Perhaps the most fundamental question to be answered is this:
To what degree do we, as the human race, find benefit in helping the less capable of our species survive. Potentially at a cost - not to the strongest and most capable - but instead placed mostly on the shoulders of the slightly-more-capable.
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.
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?
She… realizes it’s a basic income, right? Traveling is not going to be fun or affordable unless she does it hobo style.
