Ask Lemmy

I have a moderately strong opinion. I used to be very pro full minimum wage UBI until I calculated how much it actually costs and realised that it's more than the entire budget of my country.

I feel like there's a lot of benefit in a BUI system though, a $500 a month UBI is a substantial difference for people, prevents starvation and so on. It should be done in increments.

Currently the everyone in Iceland gets a tax break of around $400 on the first income they make, this amount should be directly deposited to everyone instead as a start and have it renamed as "Basic assistance" or something.

Then since you already have a payout scheme you add in all other benefits that essentially modify the amount such as disabilities, unemployment, maternity, child support payments, retirement and so on.

Having a unified payment scheme and just checking if people are eligible for benefits is less beaurocracy than having each institution handle payments each month.

I'm fine with it but feel it needs to slowly decrease as income goes up. To be clear this cannot have cut off cliffs and should err on the side of recipient. Bit there is no reason to give it to anyone with high income.

If you give it to us, we'll invest it which will fuck with the market or spend it on luxury goods. This all cause inflation that would negate the benefits.

Anyone who really needs it and is spending it all within some reasonable time doesn't have this inflation effect.

Same way people on food stamps don't cause the price of food to go up because they're not using it for excessive spending.

I understand part of the goal is no bureaucracy so I suggest it be part of the tax system. Everyone get it's but it's taxed away for high income earners in a way that is not tax avoidable.

I could also see it being added to the us tax system by simply expanding the child tax credit to include adults. That already has limits built in but that's a lump sum on a tax return so not an ideal distribution.

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

Yes, I strongly believe we should have it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

It would make many people more happy and less stressed, so why shouldn’t we do it?

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.

It's necessary for the next step in human society in a post scarcity world

tax the rich, feed the poor, subsidize birth control.

The study results look really promising. I think it would be an amazing thing for society as a whole. I just also think it won’t happen because (some) humans get really bent out of shape when they think others are suffering less than they think they should be suffering.

Yes, but it needs to be paired with an aggressive ban on any form of rent-seeking.

I like negative income tax better. Basically you declare an amount that is the basic amount someone can live on, I.e. £20k and if you earn less than that your income is topped up by other tax payers. This has the advantage of high tax payers not being given a payment every month that they don't need.

The downside of it is that means testing still requires some amount of beaurocracy. That means you'd be unable to completely axe the department of work and pensions (DWP) for example here in the UK. My understanding is that you could do universal basic income and pay everyone in the UK £1000 per month and those costs would be totally offset by no longer having to finance the DWP so it's a budget neutral policy in terms of government spending.

My opinion is that our politicians would prefer fascism.

I strongly think we should have it. The money isn't trickling down, so we need to forcibly re-distribute it.

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.

I wouldn't say it's a strong opinion, but I've never seen a convincing argument that "inflation" (read "greedy bastards") wouldn't immediately wipe out the extra income - which would be very bad if the UBI were to replace other forms of welfare.