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.
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.
Yes, I strongly believe we should have it.
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.
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.
Yes regarding welfare and snap, but not regrading things like healthcare assistance programs.
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.
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.
It’s a good concept in terms of having a social safety net and meeting basic needs. But if we keep everything else the same and just start giving everyone $5000 checks, then the rent and essentials will just magically go up in price to where it’s basically the same as it was before.
Mmm, close.
As long as the government isn’t printing money, it’s not like that money loses value. It’s possible prices will go up domestically, but internationally it will be much less profound.
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.
UBI is great, but First there’s gotta be separate publicly-funded social nets for essentials like food, housing, water, electricity, heating…
Giving everyone $5000/mo to buy everything you want and need is far too volatile, and with poor budgeting people will end up trapped in debt spirals, needing microfinance loans to survive. I’d rather the government give $1000/mo to buy everything you want, then having public services to provide food, rent, and other necessities.
I fear that giving free-range UBI on its own will spawn a bunch of extreme examples that get disseminated en-masse by reactionary outlets to breed resentment of UBI and “handouts” in the eyes of the people. You’ll have folks who are physically and/or mentally ill, who spend the whole allowance on drugs or gambling or porn or other controversial expenditures; then have to turn to charity to survive until their next UBI check. I’d need to know people would have that stable base before I’d feel comfortable with them being thrown that rope.
This is coming from seeing decades of USA arguments against welfare, then watching the “For The Children” fearmongering against the open internet. I just don’t want a few extreme examples to have us all strung up.
I’ve recently starting thinking about current artists, specifically musicians. A current crop of them come from money. I’ll use the example of Gracie Abrams, daughter of JJ Abrams. IMHO, she is definitely talented but she got her leg up from her dad being in the entertainment industry and, more importantly, never had to worry about money. How many other artists and musicians are we not hearing about because they didn’t come from money. She is one example of many.
I am a firm believer in UBI. Basic sustenance income should be available to everyone. That wouldn’t solve this problem, but it certainly would give a chance for someone with artistic talent to work on their art and while still being able to survive.
Right now, I’m listening to three very talented young people writing original songs in my garage, who will, even if successful, put in significantly more work for significantly less recognition simply because I’m not JJ Abrams.
I whole-heartedly agree.
It would make many people more happy and less stressed, so why shouldn’t we do it?
Someone else may be able to come up with a more concise and better worded argument for it, but the way we’ve implemented private ownership/use of natural resources seems pretty shitty. Especially considering how many people have been screwed over and how much damage is often done in the process.
Owning something that existed long before people, and would have continued to exist if we’ve never evolved, seems suspect in general. While there’s value in the labor involved in extracting or preparing these resources for use, the material itself wasn’t created by anyone and should belong to everyone in some way.
A portion of the income derived from the exploitation of all natural resources should be redistributed as UBI.
I think it’s a great idea.
We are the wealthiest culture ever, we can afford it.
It would zero out most crime.
Fighting to survive is beneath us.
I don’t know if you really know how much money that represents. Would you still work? If not, who will make your food, everything you buy, and why?
It’s necessary for the next step in human society in a post scarcity world
Yes, I think it should happen. But I have no idea how to make it work at a large scale. And I don’t think economist know enough to accurately say what will or won’t work.
