Universal Basic Income: What do you think of it?

in ubi •  17 days ago

The topic of UBI has become more and more popular. People like Elon Musk, Joe Rogan and many politicians on the left have made it an issue.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

  1. Do you think it makes sense? Do you want and support it.
  1. How would you pay for it? Please explain how much you think who should get and how that can be financed. If you think it can't be financed that can also be explained here.
  1. How would you make it work.
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
  1. Yes, yes
  2. It could easily be paid by the taxes which are now not paid by big companies like Google, Facebook, Shell, etc. using glitches in the laws.
  3. see 2.
    It's already proofed working in some countries.
·

Finally someone that can answer to each point!

I don't get what you mean in 2. UBI would increase cost of a state by 50%. So taxes also need to increase by 50%. That would not be insignificant and i think would completely fuck up any economy.

·
·

Hi @knicky,
taxes do not need to be raised/increased. They need to be paid!
If you accumulate all not paid taxes from these big multi-national companies there would be more than enough money to finance a UBI.
And yes: some of them will raise their prices so we will pay for it at the end.
But what about "free" services like Google, Facebook, etc? They can't do that and simply make a little bit less money which will only "hurt" some investors at the stock exchanges.
These companies are making really big money without paying (almost) no taxes.
Think also about Amazon - making billions - disturbing the market with "impossible" low prices and not paying the minimum salary to their e.g. warehouse workers. This is modern slavery and the taxes are not paid.

·

Ubi doesn't work anywhere. Finland tried it and not much happened it cost money and people who got free money were slightly happier. Surprise suprise.

Posted using Partiko Android

  1. It is Communist Utopian Tripe. We compete for limited resources, not share them. There isn't enough to go around already.
    UBI is an affront to the natural order. It will encourage people to become weak and lazy. Societies that reject it will surpass those that adopt it. I don't support it but if other people do fine, I can always go over there if I fail.
  2. Tax those who are productive.
  3. More taxes.

Posted using Partiko Android

·

So you're gonna tell me that Milton Friedman is a communist? Thomas Paine, advocated for this at the founding of the country, and they already have it in one of the deepest red states in the country, where it was passed by a republican governor, as well as passed by a republican house under a republican president, Richard Nixon.

·
·

There are limited forms that exist, but they hardly describe the economy. A safety net is a great alternative to welfare, but that is not quite communism. I don't know where to draw the line, but if you ask the people on UBI they tend to want more and more. A lot of proposals suggest its expansion. I am not too aware of the proposals youbare discussing, but my guess is the emphasize basic rather than universal and have a limited sense of what welfare entails. Not all UBI is the same. I would rather avoid supporting it unless what I am supporting is clear.

Posted using Partiko Android

It's amusing that wealthy people agree with UBI, I guess it's a way for them to feel good about themselves without actually doing anything much like the people who collect UBI don't have to do anything to get it.
I agree with UBI, it but needs to be set so low its not an attractive option for anyone with an ounce of motivation or capability to live off of. It needs to be permenantly revoked in certain circumstances such as abuse or tax avoidance, if you leave the country for a significant amount of time you should be disqualified too. It could be administered through a blockchain and made impossible to spend outside of a specific marketplace, it also shouldn't be for long-term savings.
UBI could save a lot of money, taxes would become easier, there would be less programs to administer such as employment insurance, forced retirement schemes, countless tax credits, disability payments, welfare etc. There would be savings with reduced crime and massive savings with reduced administration costs. I don't think it would cost any more than all these Old Age security programs, Medicare and other benefits for the poor and unfortunate. But they would all have to be replaced with UBI and thousands of government employees would need to be let go.
Many people don't like their jobs and plenty of people are very unproductive at their work. Maybe they would be able to do something more productive or that would at least make them happier. A UBI program would have very little benefit to me personally, but I get the concept.

Posted using Partiko Android

·

I believe $1000 a month is pretty low when you consider how much it costs in the world to meet your basic needs. Also, when you take into account that people will then be able to move around, they will finally be able to afford to live some place cheaper. Because the cost of living on the coasts is higher than here in middle america. I live in a 2 bedroom house with a full basement, fenced in back yard, in a relatively nicer neighborhood and my rent is only $400.

I’m open to ideas for how to improve living conditions for lower income families but there are big questions about where will the money come from and how it will be spent. Quantitative easing will increase inflation and government debt will shift the burden to future generations. Spending can help stimulate the economy in certain areas but without strict controls the results will be unpredictable and could include undesired outcomes such as empowering illegal narcotics dealers. In the US we have programs like food stamps and government subsidized housing projects which are limited to helping families specifically in those areas and have strict controls to ensure money is spent appropriately. I would rather focus on improving those types of existing programs to facilitate housing and food instead of handing out "free money" to everyone.

Currently from the tax money used for social benefits about half ends up paying for the bureaucracy. Thats crazy. Using UBI we get rid of this overhead and can use almost 100% to pay out people.

In the current system, you would simply cut all the different ways to get benefits, and simply give everyone the money. This would be financed by an increase in taxes so that for working people not much changes. What they loose in extra taxes they get back in UBI. This would not be more expensive than the current system and is a huge gift for work heavy industries since salaries drop. I think this would be much much better than what we have right now.

Still I think that tax-funded UBI is fundamentally misguided, just as the current welfare state. Instead I think that each human has an equal right to benefit from the land and resources of this planet. This could be represented by a UBI financed from resource sales, ground taxes, ... . Then there is also no question how much it should be. It is simply what it is.

Every single wealthy civilized country already has a social safety net in place, including the USA. UBI is a more efficient, cheaper and much less bureaucratic way to implement a social safety net than any existing alternative.

If you're against having a social safety net, go ahead and say that. I can disagree with you but I respect your point of view. But to categorically reject UBI just because "it's paying someone for existing" is plain stupid. That is already done in all Western countries. Only in the current system, an army of bureaucrats is needed to do the paperwork.

It's impossible to replace the entire welfare system with UBI, but it would alleviate a lot of problems establish an automatic income floor of some sort using UBI or negative income tax.

·

Umm cheaper? How so?

·
·

Anyone with no or very small income of their own is entitled to some type of benefit anyway. What happens now is that they have to file an application, which is processed by a bureaucrat who decides whether or not to accept it. UBI would establish an income floor, which we already have, but with minimum bureaucracy. It would be cost neutral even without the advantage of less bureaucracy because everyone's income tax percentage calculation would factor it in as income. Income tax percentage as a function of income can be computed in such a way as to make UBI neutral in terms of after tax income for everyone above a certain reasonably low threshold.

·
·
·

A UBI would increase any state budget by about 50%. I.e. in the US a UBI would cost about 2 trillion, with an overall budget of 4.

So what you are saying just does not add up. What you are describing would be correct if the UBI would be $100 per month vs $1000.

·
·
·
·
A UBI would increase any state budget by about 50%. I.e. in the US a UBI would cost about 2 trillion, with an overall budget of 4.

Yes, but taxes would be increased and benefits cut down commensurately. The net effect would be zero for the vast majority of tax payers as well as states. It's really just a technicality designed to reduce bureaucracy in the distribution of welfare benefits and not some mechanism intended to increase income transfers as a whole.

So what you are saying just does not add up. What you are describing would be correct if the UBI would be $100 per month vs $1000.

UBI would replace significant parts of the current welfare system. How much do you think the system we have costs to run?

In Finland, the lowest level of unemployment benefit is about €550 per month (there are other benefits on top of that). What I'm suggesting is that unemployment benefits and any other benefits someone might receive instead of unemployment benefits such as state-paid minimum pensions be slashed by an amount equal to the UBI. The average and high-income people would technically receive UBI as well but their taxes would be hiked commensurately. There would be no change in the take home earnings for most people.

There are no winners in UBI.

It will never last, no one is going to pay you to breathe and reproduce.

If they did the amount you got would always get smaller. Picture the reward pool with no new money coming in. Picture the min. requirements and cheapest food.

Picture vaccinations and culling for the expensive.

NO WAY. I don't want to pay or it and I don't want to receive it. I think it is funny that anyone can imagine it as a good thing.

Somebody has to pay for it and it requires government to confiscate wealth and transfer it to someone else. UBI is a disincentive to work and ultimately ithink UBI would totally destroy the economy and the means of production.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” Margaret Thatcher

It's an idea that is often rejected due to its past failures. It might be that wanting more wealth is built into our genes or that maybe UBI needs more thought to it.

Posted using Partiko Android

Hi, @knircky!

You just got a 3.57% upvote from SteemPlus!
To get higher upvotes, earn more SteemPlus Points (SPP). On your Steemit wallet, check your SPP balance and click on "How to earn SPP?" to find out all the ways to earn.
If you're not using SteemPlus yet, please check our last posts in here to see the many ways in which SteemPlus can improve your Steem experience on Steemit and Busy.

Andrew Yang was the only politician advocating for UBI which he's rebranded as "The Freedom Dividend". He has nice explanation here https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/