Ask Lemmy

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.

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.

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.

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.

Free healthcare for all before we even think about UBI.

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.

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?

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.

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