Universal Basic Income

Heyo · Mar 5, 2021

Hi,

multiple users have said they'd be interested to know more about UBI. So this is the thread to discuss it. (I know it's in Political Debates but there is no equivalent discussion sub forum. If there is a more appropriate one, please move.)
I think most of us aren't fit enough to debate. Let's first see what UBI is before we go into the debate, OK?

First the basics:

Universal - everyone (every citizen) gets it. (There are discussions about children.)
Basic - it should cover the basic needs, food, shelter, healthcare and a little allowance to partake in social life.
Income - it is paid monthly like a wage.

There are multiple models on how to implement UBI. One model is the negative tax. This may not be the best for countries without a functioning population register (e.g. the US). The idea is to have one central agency to handle incoming and outgoing money. This would make the need for other agencies obsolete. (Small government!) It can be implemented by using a progression curve that allows for negative taxes.

There are more models. I leave it to the more knowledgable to describe those.

And, of course, the always asked question when it comes to government spending (except for military, police and subsidies): How to finance that?
First, most of it is money that gets paid anyway, only under a multitude of names: welfare, pensions, unemployment benefit, etc. A part is compensated by shrinking government agencies. (Central agency, no need for means testing, etc.) The rest is going to be financed by higher taxes and here everyone has their preferred target. The most rational would be corporations. The higher the automatisation, the higher the taxes. Or my preferred method, paying taxes when you're dead (100% inheritance tax). But that is too radical for most people.

Any questions?
What's your preferred method?
How would you like it financed?

If you don't like UBI, why are you still here?

Colt · Mar 5, 2021

Get a job and you will have an income. Creating systems to accommodate idlers ends up making producers slaves and idlers unhealthy.

80s fashion girl · Mar 5, 2021

Someone else gets to decide your standard of living, which may not be what your ideal. Someone else gets to decide what type of food you can afford to eat, and everything else you do has to fall under that basic income.

You may want to consider what you would like in life, and if you don't want to decide your destiny, go for it.

Revoltingest · Mar 5, 2021

Heyo said:
How would you like it financed?

Taxes on income earned.
I've long liked the UBI ever since the Cato Institute
proposed it a couple decades ago. It would replace
many unwieldy social programs with largess that
affords the recipients more liberty. It will become
even more important as the economy jettisons
low skill workers due to automation. It's a political
stability thingie.

Stevicus · Mar 5, 2021

Heyo said:
Any questions?
What's your preferred method?
How would you like it financed?

If you don't like UBI, why are you still here?

I think it could work, especially as society becomes more and more automated. If we don't have some form of UBI in place, we will see a larger percentage of the population which is idle. As long as all the necessary work of society gets done, what difference does it make if it's done by 1% of the population or 50%? There are some who believe that "everyone must work" purely for sentimental reasons, although some of these "make work" occupations are just as useless to society as those who remain idle.

Twilight Hue · Mar 5, 2021

Heyo said:
Hi,

multiple users have said they'd be interested to know more about UBI. So this is the thread to discuss it. (I know it's in Political Debates but there is no equivalent discussion sub forum. If there is a more appropriate one, please move.)
I think most of us aren't fit enough to debate. Let's first see what UBI is before we go into the debate, OK?

First the basics:

Universal - everyone (every citizen) gets it. (There are discussions about children.)
Basic - it should cover the basic needs, food, shelter, healthcare and a little allowance to partake in social life.
Income - it is paid monthly like a wage.

There are multiple models on how to implement UBI. One model is the negative tax. This may not be the best for countries without a functioning population register (e.g. the US). The idea is to have one central agency to handle incoming and outgoing money. This would make the need for other agencies obsolete. (Small government!) It can be implemented by using a progression curve that allows for negative taxes.

There are more models. I leave it to the more knowledgable to describe those.

And, of course, the always asked question when it comes to government spending (except for military, police and subsidies): How to finance that?
First, most of it is money that gets paid anyway, only under a multitude of names: welfare, pensions, unemployment benefit, etc. A part is compensated by shrinking government agencies. (Central agency, no need for means testing, etc.) The rest is going to be financed by higher taxes and here everyone has their preferred target. The most rational would be corporations. The higher the automatisation, the higher the taxes. Or my preferred method, paying taxes when you're dead (100% inheritance tax). But that is too radical for most people.

Any questions?
What's your preferred method?
How would you like it financed?

If you don't like UBI, why are you still here?

I think a wise way to go about it would be to study countries with a UBC and see how they fared then engage in impact studies and trials in various economic environments.

There is almost a certainty its going to have to be looked at in view of ai and automated systems as jobs likely will not be as plentiful as we continue into the future.

A significant problem however is the notion of paying people to do nothing. Something that would come across as unacceptable with a number of people.

Heyo · Mar 5, 2021

cOLTER said:
Get a job and you will have an income. Creating systems to accommodate idlers ends up making producers slaves and idlers unhealthy.

Why is it that it's always the people who didn't read the OP are the first to answer?
Maybe because they didn't take the time to read?

Heyo · Mar 5, 2021

80s fashion girl said:
Someone else gets to decide your standard of living, which may not be what your ideal. Someone else gets to decide what type of food you can afford to eat, and everything else you do has to fall under that basic income.

You may want to consider what you would like in life, and if you don't want to decide your destiny, go for it.

The answer to your question is no. No, UBI is not restricting your income to the basics, it is guaranteeing the basics. You can earn as much as you want and are able above that. (And then your taxes are positive.)
The idea is that you don't have to work. You can quit a job you don't like without falling in abject poverty. You can try for an at home business without it having to pay the bills from day one. It adds a lot of freedom to your life.

Revoltingest · Mar 5, 2021

Heyo said:
The answer to your question is no. No, UBI is not restricting your income to the basics, it is guaranteeing the basics. You can earn as much as you want and are able above that. (And then your taxes are positive.)
The idea is that you don't have to work. You can quit a job you don't like without falling in abject poverty. You can try for an at home business without it having to pay the bills from day one. It adds a lot of freedom to your life.

This is why I see it as more libertarian than the current
system, which removes benefits as the recipient earns
more income. Aside from creating dysfunctional incentives,
it also curtails their liberty, eg, Section 8 housing placing
strict restrictions on guests & co-tenants.

Heyo · Mar 5, 2021

Stevicus said:
There are some who believe that "everyone must work" purely for sentimental reasons, although some of these "make work" occupations are just as useless to society as those who remain idle.

"I'm feeling miserable at my job so you should too" isn't a great argument. And jobs where people feel miserable aren't very productive.
Also, who says that people have to be idle? When your basics are met, you can do any job you want. You can pick up a craft that brings in some extra money for some extra comfort - but there is no pressure.

amorphous_constellation · Mar 5, 2021

cOLTER said:
Get a job and you will have an income. Creating systems to accommodate idlers ends up making producers slaves and idlers unhealthy.

how do you know the idlers will get unhealthy. I know for a fact that I'd spend all the time reading books and creating art. There would be absolutely no reason to be bored

Stevicus · Mar 5, 2021

Heyo said:
"I'm feeling miserable at my job so you should too" isn't a great argument. And jobs where people feel miserable aren't very productive.

I can see where this notion comes from, the idea that "everyone must work," at least when looking back to simpler times when everyone living on a farm or in a village had to work. There was much work to be done - more than the number of people available to do it. A slacker just wasn't very well thought of in those kinds of circumstances.

But we're far beyond that age now, so we don't need to continue to embrace primitive thinking.

Also, who says that people have to be idle? When your basics are met, you can do any job you want. You can pick up a craft that brings in some extra money for some extra comfort - but there is no pressure.

I agree. I don't think people would be truly idle. I recall an episode of Star Trek TNG which touched upon the economics of the future.

RALPH: Then what will happen to us? There's no trace of my money. My office is gone. What will I do? How will I live?
PICARD: This is the twenty fourth century. Material needs no longer exist.
RALPH: Then what's the challenge?
PICARD: The challenge, Mister Offenhouse, is to improve yourself. To enrich yourself. Enjoy it.

I think more people would take up the challenge, and UBI could lead to a new golden age of culture and scientific achievement.

I sometimes wonder, what if the world lost out on the greatest artist - all because that person had to do a "make work" job to survive and didn't have time to hone or develop their talents? What if someone with an aptitude for medicine can't go to medical school because they have to support their family twirling a sign on a street corner? The world could lose out on a cure for cancer.

I wonder how much society has lost, merely to feed the greed, malice, and other irrational emotional needs of the ruling elite.

amorphous_constellation · Mar 5, 2021

Stevicus said:
I can see where this notion comes from, the idea that "everyone must work," at least when looking back to simpler times when everyone living on a farm or in a village had to work. There was much work to be done - more than the number of people available to do it. A slacker just wasn't very well thought of in those kinds of circumstances.

But we're far beyond that age now, so we don't need to continue to embrace primitive thinking.

Beautifully put. Well if now is not quite the time, eventually the time will come. It is no were writ in adamantine that humans, the supposed glory of nature, need to engage in the same type of drudging labor forever. If we can make machines to do much of what needs to be done for us, or alter lifestyles to actually become more recreational, we might stop this perpetual worship of work. I have met way too many people that have to work two jobs.

Colt · Mar 5, 2021

Heyo said:
Why is it that it's always the people who didn't read the OP are the first to answer?
Maybe because they didn't take the time to read?

I did read the op and answered your question:

"How would you like it financed?"

Get a freaking job is how you can finance a UBI!

ideogenous_mover said:
how do you know the idlers will get unhealthy. I know for a fact that I'd spend all the time reading books and creating art. There would be absolutely no reason to be bored

Because they get unhealthy now. You may be an exception but the people that have to work to subsidize your self centered leisure will resent it! Communalism isn't anything new.

Heyo · Mar 5, 2021

ideogenous_mover said:
how do you know the idlers will get unhealthy. I know for a fact that I'd spend all the time reading books and creating art. There would be absolutely no reason to be bored

We could look at the people who already have an income without having to work. (Those who's job description is "son" or "heir".) Some of them not only have their basic needs met but live in luxury without having to do anything and their wealth will not dry up in their lifetime or that of their children.

amorphous_constellation · Mar 5, 2021

cOLTER said:
Because they get unhealthy now. You may be an exception but the people that have to work to subsidize your self centered leisure will resent it!

Heyo said:
We could look at the people who already have an income without having to work. (Those who's job description is "son" or "heir".) Some of them not only have their basic needs met but live in luxury without having to do anything and their wealth will not dry up in their lifetime or that of their children.

I guarantee I'm doing worse for the planet than whatever people you guys are talking about, since I am a material handler in a factory. Sure I sweat sometimes, and I can work hard all night long, without even wanting to take a break sometimes. But it doesn't matter, since 'real wealth' is not being created in any way, shape, or form by people advocating that I do this. That I do it, is more like some kind extraneous symbol to the culture - I earn things in this way, according to the 'truth' of how things should be done, existing only in people's minds

metis · Mar 5, 2021

Heyo said:
Hi,

multiple users have said they'd be interested to know more about UBI. So this is the thread to discuss it. (I know it's in Political Debates but there is no equivalent discussion sub forum. If there is a more appropriate one, please move.)
I think most of us aren't fit enough to debate. Let's first see what UBI is before we go into the debate, OK?

First the basics:

Universal - everyone (every citizen) gets it. (There are discussions about children.)
Basic - it should cover the basic needs, food, shelter, healthcare and a little allowance to partake in social life.
Income - it is paid monthly like a wage.

There are multiple models on how to implement UBI. One model is the negative tax. This may not be the best for countries without a functioning population register (e.g. the US). The idea is to have one central agency to handle incoming and outgoing money. This would make the need for other agencies obsolete. (Small government!) It can be implemented by using a progression curve that allows for negative taxes.

There are more models. I leave it to the more knowledgable to describe those.

And, of course, the always asked question when it comes to government spending (except for military, police and subsidies): How to finance that?
First, most of it is money that gets paid anyway, only under a multitude of names: welfare, pensions, unemployment benefit, etc. A part is compensated by shrinking government agencies. (Central agency, no need for means testing, etc.) The rest is going to be financed by higher taxes and here everyone has their preferred target. The most rational would be corporations. The higher the automatisation, the higher the taxes. Or my preferred method, paying taxes when you're dead (100% inheritance tax). But that is too radical for most people.

Any questions?
What's your preferred method?
How would you like it financed?

If you don't like UBI, why are you still here?

Conservative economist and a winner of a Nobel Prize in Economics, Milton Friedman, was in favor of what's called a "negative income tax", which is close to an UBI.

Orbit · Mar 5, 2021

Heyo said:
Hi,

multiple users have said they'd be interested to know more about UBI. So this is the thread to discuss it. (I know it's in Political Debates but there is no equivalent discussion sub forum. If there is a more appropriate one, please move.)
I think most of us aren't fit enough to debate. Let's first see what UBI is before we go into the debate, OK?

First the basics:

Universal - everyone (every citizen) gets it. (There are discussions about children.)
Basic - it should cover the basic needs, food, shelter, healthcare and a little allowance to partake in social life.
Income - it is paid monthly like a wage.

There are multiple models on how to implement UBI. One model is the negative tax. This may not be the best for countries without a functioning population register (e.g. the US). The idea is to have one central agency to handle incoming and outgoing money. This would make the need for other agencies obsolete. (Small government!) It can be implemented by using a progression curve that allows for negative taxes.

There are more models. I leave it to the more knowledgable to describe those.

And, of course, the always asked question when it comes to government spending (except for military, police and subsidies): How to finance that?
First, most of it is money that gets paid anyway, only under a multitude of names: welfare, pensions, unemployment benefit, etc. A part is compensated by shrinking government agencies. (Central agency, no need for means testing, etc.) The rest is going to be financed by higher taxes and here everyone has their preferred target. The most rational would be corporations. The higher the automatisation, the higher the taxes. Or my preferred method, paying taxes when you're dead (100% inheritance tax). But that is too radical for most people.

Any questions?
What's your preferred method?
How would you like it financed?

If you don't like UBI, why are you still here?

Stockton CA recently gave a test sample of people $500 a month for two years and found that they paid down debt, and full time employment increased.

Heyo · Mar 5, 2021

Orbit said:
Stckton CA recently gave a test sample of people $500 a month for two years and found that they paid down debt, and full time employment increased.

Sometimes you've got to have money to make money, even when it's a meagre $500. Having no money can be pretty expensive.

sun rise · Mar 5, 2021

Orbit said:
Stockton CA recently gave a test sample of people $500 a month for two years and found that they paid down debt, and full time employment increased.

You beat me to it. And there were very good reasons that was the outcome. People used the money to better themselves: to look for better jobs, for example.

Employment rose among those in free money experiment, study shows

When the program started in February 2019, 28% of the people slated to get the free money had full-time jobs. One year later, 40% of those people had full-time jobs. A control group of people who did not get the money saw a 5 percentage point increase in full-time employment over that same time period, from 32% to 37%.
...
The researchers said that the extra $500 per month was enough for people with part-time jobs to take time off so they could interview for full-time jobs that offered better pay. They also said the money could have helped people who weren’t working at all find jobs by allowing them to pay for transportation to interviews.

After a year of getting the money, 62% of the people were paying off debt compared to 52% before the study. Researchers also said most people moved from being likely to have mild mental health disorders to “likely mental wellness.”

Universal Basic Income

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist

I'm a planet

Veteran Member

The world is on fire