Yeah. I should definitely get it, and a lot of it. In fact, more than the rest of most scrubs. Ill do cool ass shit. I already do cool shit, and with more money, I could do more and even cooler shit.

Sponsor my cool shit and I will give you cool shit in return. DM me for my cash app.

Yes. When 10 people control more wealth than the rest of us combined while families working 60+ hours a week cant put food on the table. Then yes, the system is rigged against the middle class and we deserve a fighting chance

Yes. I’m opposed.

Simply saying “everyone should get enough money from the government to live” has a lot of problems. The most obvious being that cost of living varies substantially from one place to another. And peoples needs vary substantially as well. So where do we set the number?

You’ll also need to figure out how to combat the massive inflationary effects that would occur.

But imo, the biggest issue is what happens in the long term. Say a nation gives its citizens a UBI. Now wait 100 years. What happens? Well what happens is that, assuming this doesn’t collapse the economy some other way, and assuming this is a democratic nation, everyone will start taking UBI for granted, and will start thinking “you know, if only I had a little more free money, I could afford that nice shirt I saw my neighbor wearing yesterday…”. And because “free money for everyone” will be a popular political platform, the UBI amount will go up and up and up, with little thought put into how to continue funding it. The government accrues more and more debt over time funding the program, until finally the government can no longer continue paying its debtors, and the country collapses into chaos.

Instead, I’m in favor of a citizen’s dividend, which is tied to the nation’s economic output. A good example is how Alaskans get a dividend, since they agreed to allow private companies to extract the oil from their state. Land value taxes could work like this. Carbon taxes could work like this. If you want to make sure everyone is fed and housed, then that is a very noble goal - but it should be accomplished by providing people with food and housing. And I think it is right and fair that the people of a nation should be compensated for the use of their land and the negative externalities they endure - but how much they are paid out should not be coupled to the cost of living. It should be well known to be an independent, unpredictable, and highly variable amount that they can’t rely on, so that they never gain the expectation that they will always have endless free money to spend however they please.

I agree we need a universal basic income, I refer to it as “automation compensation”. It only works if corporations and investors are banned from owning residential homes. Also we need to construct an abundance of efficient high rises to ensure there’s more than enough availability. In order for basic necessities like housing, electricity, water, and food are met, we need the infrastructure plan to guarantee availability. Otherwise, a UBI will just drive up costs because owners and sellers will account for that extra money people can spend.

It took me a while to come around to the idea. I believed in small American business long after it was dead. Always suspected that we would eventually regulate in favor of it again.

After studying the financial engineering done from 2008-2025 and the immense wealth concentration it created I think UBI helps the problem. As wages become more suppressed and jobs become fewer, we do need to examine our social safety nets again.

I think the only thing I disagree with about UBI is that all of us become somewhat dependent on the government. Will that make us more active participants in government? Currently, most people’s retirement funds are based on the S&P 500, and when it comes time to vote, they will always vote to protect their retirement funds in the S&P 500. This is part of the trap. We’ve been dealing with it during the financial engineering of the last two decades.

UBI would certainly strip powers from some and give some dignity back to many, but it becomes a beast in itself that must be managed with the integrity that our country hasn’t been managed with for decades. So idk! I think they need to figure out universal healthcare before universal basic income. One will help structure the other.

As a step inbetween industrialization and automatization, i think it’s neccessary sometime. But that means also a step from capaitalism to whatever we have then, so even that step will not be easy.

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.

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.

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

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.

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’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.

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.

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.