Universal Basic Income

[Kooky]

I think that before you can even think of implementing UBI, we first need to get people to abandon the counterfactual belief that the unemployed are lazy idlers who don't want a job.

 

[Kooky]

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.

The problem with a lot of conservative ideas about UBI is that they tend to be framed as an excuse to get rid of every other form of social support system, effectively turning UBI into a social welfare system for those who need it the least, while leaving the poor and the disabled in an arguably worse position than they are now.

In light of this, we should be very careful in how we think to implement such a system and take a long, hard look at what we think UBI is supposed to accomplish, both in the short run and in the long run.

What exactly is it that this system is going to fix that we can't achieve as easily by other means?

(edited typos)

 

[metis]

What exactly is it that this system is going to fix that we can't achieve as easily by other means?

What I like about Friedman's approach is that the negative income tax provides incentive for one to even just get a minimum-wage job, while at the same time providing a living wage.

What all too many Pubs don't seem to realize is that making certain lower-income families get living wages is the best way to stimulate the economy and keep it running even during a recession, largely because families at that level tend to spend more of it, plus they are more apt to spend it locally, which is where economists know is the best place to begin.

 

[Heyo]

I think that before you can even think of implementing UBI, we first need to get people to abandon the counterfactual belief that the unemployed are lazy idlers who don't want a job.

And that being content with a lazy, idling life is a bad thing. At least they aren't competing for jobs that get rarer with time.

 

[Kooky]

And that being content with a lazy, idling life is a bad thing. At least they aren't competing for jobs that get rarer with time.

You may have had starkly different experiences with the issue for all I know, but I've seen the unemployment system from both sides and in those times I haven't encountered a single person who was content with being on welfare and without a job.

 

[metis]

...but I've seen the unemployment system from both sides and in those times I haven't encountered a single person who was content with being on welfare and without a job.

There was a fellow I used to see bowling in the league we bowled in years ago, and he said that he had been a hard-nosed conservative but then lost his job in the tool & die industry. He struggled to stay afloat for two years, almost lost their house because he was trained in a type of job that was replaced by computers, and this created a LOT of problems,. He went on to say that never again would he be so harsh or judgmental with those who may struggle through no fault of their own.

I have a cousin who developed ALS in his 50's, and this took a toll as well, but thank God he was able to get disability pay.

My point is that so many of us may not realize how our life could change in a heartbeat.

 

[Suave]

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'd like UBI to be implemented in the form of a $2,000 refundable tax credit for each American resident. Also, I'd like each American resident to get a $180 monthly rebate from a 10 percent value tax imposed upon us consumers to help pay for the environmental costs from each time we make a purchase that is pillaging our precious Earth's resources.