Ask Lemmy

My strong opinion is that anyone born into a progressive society is entitled to food, clothing and shelter. The bare minimum you need to survive. There are too many holes in the middle of most towns and cities nowadays with the "Corporation Corners" on the outskirts sucking up all the money that used to flow inward.

it would allow me to try earning money or study without worrying about being punished for failing

We should not have UBI as that implicitly continues the need for money. Instead we should work towards a world with Universal Basic Resources, or even not so basic resources, if it can be automated.

Progressive taxation rate that can go negative (aka people can receive money) is more fair.

Could even be easier to implement because it is not only a "social" benefit that cost tax payers money. That could help convince some people.

Conceptually I'm 100% for it. In reality I'm sure theres going to be unintended consequences that im not seeing.

If it can be made to work like it sounds like it should, we need it and we need it bad.

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

Sounds like a great idea, and in fact if AI proceeds as it looks to be proceeding, Basic Income will be the only thing that keeps society from totally collapsing.

The tricky part is trying to figure out how much it should be. If such a thing would be implemented like totally in a society, it would probably have a huge economical impact. And as far as I can tell, nobody has any idea what that impact would be. Who knows, perhaps it'll be completely nullified by prices rising exactly as much as the UBI is.

Free healthcare for all before we even think about UBI.

I think that focusing everything on UBI and dismantling all other forms of welfare are going to create massive inequalities in society that few people anticipate.

For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if there are effectively UBI free zones in some major metros with decent economies.

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.

Once AI doesn't pan out as the savior of the planet, they'll pivot to go all in on robotics, and lots of people are going to lose jobs. When there's a permanent unemployment rate of 30% or more, society will be faced with 2 choices - UBI, or a reduction in the population.

Which solution do you think each party will embrace?

Against both because I'm a communist against income and because its almost always paired with eliminating almost all help programs and with a suggested amount that when those two are combined will arguably make things worse for those in the most need,

Yup - I'm for it, in a very specific combination. A universal basic income that is regularly recalculated to ensure that it provides for all basic needs, connected with a flat tax on any income earned through other means and an abolishment of the minimum wage. What it means: taxes become much simpler, the vast majority of people don't need to do them at all. Employers only advertise with net income, so you immediately know what you're getting at the end of the week/month. Since there is no minimum wage (and since one isn't necessary any more due to everyone having their basic needs covered), the economy is more inclusive, since jobs that don't attract as much money but still benefit society like being a musician can be done that much more. Employees have more power since losing their job doesn't mean the threat of losing the ability to afford necessities, meaning they also have a stronger position at the bargaining table.

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.

it's definitely better than nothing, but it's more like a mitigation than a solution. it will need to continually chase some sort of cost of living index