Universal Basic Income[Poll]

[epic]

Do you support Universal Basic Income? Why or Why not?

 

[Final Escape]

Who's gonna pay for it is the question? The rich sure aren't as they can hide and minimize the theft of their wealth by the government. Someone has to produce and create wealth and if u disincentivize people from working hard to create wealth for themselves than everyone eventually ends up poor. This is why socialism ends up hurting the poorest people especially as the money runs out to support them through the redistribution of income from the more well off to the less well off. Government does not actually produce anything it only plunders your earnings through all sorts of taxes many hidden like inflation, and then gives some of it to the lower classes to keep them at a bare minimal existence and to bribe them to vote for the democrats who are not for helping the working class or the poor.

That's actually the party that does not care about the poor despite what they claim. Leftists have this fantasy that u can make everything equal and theft is moral. The only way to help the poor is to not forcefully confiscate the wealth of more well off and rich people since these people create the opportunity and raised living standards for the less well off people to potentially become well off too. Normally u would see voluntary charity step in more to help the poor if u removed the welfare system and it would be more humane than the state run charity system because it would permanently end dependency on gov handouts in many cases. It would also go back to families being a lot nicer to each other because intact homes and strong family protects u from poverty as u age or if u are unfortunate or going through temporary tough times. The protective factor of intact close families has been damaged by gov policies and incentives that alter how people normally behave.

 

[mediocre]

I find this quite interesting. I've been following politics in America and some of the democratic candidates have been talking about this. I think it was Andrew Yang who said he would create a ubi of $1000/month to every American adult and it would be paid for by the big tech companies like Amazon and Apple? I could have my facts wrong it's just what I've heard/read. This sounds amazing but I have doubts. These companies have avoided taxes for years so what's going to happen to suddenly make them agree to this? I don't think they would without a fight. That's why I think this plan in particular is unrealistic.
But what do I know. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Epsilon0]

They did an experiment on that in Finland.

For two years they paid about 650€ per month to people who lacked income due to various reasons. The results, after the test period ended, showed that people scored higher on self evaluation questions related to psychological well-being. The test subjects were, however, nowhere closer to getting a job, which, if I understood correctly was the primary goal of the experiment. So, no citizen salary in Finland.

But to answer your question: I would vote yes. I vote yes to anything that improves people's mental health. Don't care if I have to pay higher taxes.

 

[Final Escape]

They did an experiment on that in Finland.

For two years they paid about 650€ per month to people who lacked income due to various reasons. The results, after the test period ended, showed that people scored higher on self evaluation questions related to psychological well-being. The test subjects were, however, nowhere closer to getting a job, which, if I understood correctly was the primary goal of the experiment. So, no citizen salary in Finland.

But to answer your question: I would vote yes. I vote yes to anything that improves people's mental health. Don't care if I have to pay higher taxes.

Only problems, taxation eventually impoverishes the poorest people, that money is not free. It had to be stolen from someone else. You might think oh they're rich, they will barely notice but the producers quit producing as the taxation increases, because most of their earnings will be taken by the gov to give to the unproductive. It's not sustainable because ignores human nature. Human beings do not do well under slavery. When people start having their earnings taxed at like 60% they aren't goin to work very hard or much because why would u? If 60% of the time u are working to support other people not even related to u who u don't even know and u never agreed to this confiscation of your earnings to top it off. It's not like most people pay taxes because they want to, it's because they are forced at gun point. Threat of jail if u don't is the only reason people pay taxes. Of course some people don't understand that taxation is theft and immoral bc we are brainwashed in school to think it's normal.

 

[Epsilon0]

60% taxes sounds outrages, for sure, it would never work. That I agree with.

I do not have a clear cut solution to the problem, but since I have met people on disability who live in constant fear of losing their income, I am all for exploring other means of helping them, citizen salary being one of them.

Besides, here's a thought: monetary problems are known to cause a lot of stress/anxiety, so maybe a measly part of the tax money we pay could be redirected towards citizen salaries, instead of healthcare.

This is all very simplified, of course.

 

[epic]

60% taxes sounds outrages, for sure, it would never work. That I agree with.

I do not have a clear cut solution to the problem, but since I have met people on disability who live in constant fear of losing their income, I am all for exploring other means of helping them, citizen salary being one of them.

Besides, here's a thought: monetary problems are known to cause a lot of stress/anxiety, so maybe a measly part of the tax money we pay could be redirected towards citizen salaries, instead of healthcare.

This is all very simplified, of course.

We could have a targetted scheme for providing income to people with ailments instead of giving it to everyone. What do you think ?

 

[Epsilon0]

In countries with good wellfare systems in place, this falls under the state run Social Insurance. It is the Social Insurance that pays income to sick people.

The problem is that the Social Insurance must first asess your health problems, and then base their decision on that assessment. This is highly problematic for people with "invisible" illnesses such as chronic pain or psychological disorders. If you can't "prove" you suffer, you don't get money. Furthermore, you have to keep proving you suffer, in order for company to keep making the payments.

Such an inhumane system!

So, yeah, I am all for a targeted scheme for people with ailmemts, but I wonder how you could solve the big conundrum involving the burden of proof. There are virtually no means of objectivly quantifying a person's sufferring, so, how can we decide who qualifies for the payments and who doesn't?

 

[deflagrat]

I would vote no, it would ruin the economy. Basic Income, sure, but not UBI.

 

[epic]

Who's gonna pay for it is the question? The rich sure aren't as they can hide and minimize the theft of their wealth by the government. Someone has to produce and create wealth and if u disincentivize people from working hard to create wealth for themselves than everyone eventually ends up poor. This is why socialism ends up hurting the poorest people especially as the money runs out to support them through the redistribution of income from the more well off to the less well off. Government does not actually produce anything it only plunders your earnings through all sorts of taxes many hidden like inflation, and then gives some of it to the lower classes to keep them at a bare minimal existence and to bribe them to vote for the democrats who are not for helping the working class or the poor.

That's actually the party that does not care about the poor despite what they claim. Leftists have this fantasy that u can make everything equal and theft is moral. The only way to help the poor is to not forcefully confiscate the wealth of more well off and rich people since these people create the opportunity and raised living standards for the less well off people to potentially become well off too. Normally u would see voluntary charity step in more to help the poor if u removed the welfare system and it would be more humane than the state run charity system because it would permanently end dependency on gov handouts in many cases. It would also go back to families being a lot nicer to each other because intact homes and strong family protects u from poverty as u age or if u are unfortunate or going through temporary tough times. The protective factor of intact close families has been damaged by gov policies and incentives that alter how people normally behave.

Basic income targetted for people with ailments.What do you think about that?

 

[Final Escape]

Basic income targetted for people with ailments.What do you think about that?

Lol! Private charity would be the way to help the unfortunate in a voluntary sustainable way because then there's no free riding or people abusing the system. Stealing the earnings of others by force cannot be sustained because people change their behavior if they are being stolen from. They will just stop producing so there's nothing to steal. It doesn't matter what the reason for the theft because theft is always wrong. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I understand sometimes a person might steal something small bc they are starving for example, but universal basic income is theft on a grand scale from the productive so it cannot be sustained for long.

 

[OneBigBlur]

Yes, but I'm not so sure that it should be given to everyone and if that is even feasible longterm. The current welfare system keeps you in a perpetual state of poverty and is often only given to the people with the most severe form of physical disabilities. UBI allows you to keep the money for life and gives you the option to attempt working without the penalty of losing it or having to prove that you're still disabled. I never really had a chance at any kind of recovery without a safety net and there really aren't any in the current system.

A VAT tax would work but I don't believe that people care enough or are smart enough to vote for someone like Andrew Yang.

 

[PwincessStepford]

Socialism will collapse society. It literally has never worked historically. People will stop trying to get those highly coveted and important careers (i.e. doctor) because they won't see most of that money anyway [no, money doesn't grow from trees, so someone must pay]. It completely goes against what is productive psychologically.

 

[Xaphous]

Yes because some people are refused any job at all and expected to live on barely anything. You may be too mentally ill to work even if you got such opportunities but refused disability so government forces you to suicide anyway. There are downsides, regardless it would never happen anyway

 

[Jean4]

Nope. I'm American, have no clue what that is and am fighting Trump who is destroying our economy. Carry on. ;)

 

[OneBigBlur]

Nope. I'm American, have no clue what that is and am fighting Trump who is destroying our economy. Carry on. ;)

Andrew Yang for Mayor of NYC

Join Andrew Yang to fight for a future New York City that we can all be proud of.

www.yang2020.com

 

[Jean4]

Andrew Yang for Mayor of NYC

Join Andrew Yang to fight for a future New York City that we can all be proud of.

www.yang2020.com

I like Yang. The same way I like Marianne Williamson. They are fun and don't stand a chance.

I'm on team Biden.

 

[Final Escape]

In countries with good wellfare systems in place, this falls under the state run Social Insurance. It is the Social Insurance that pays income to sick people.

The problem is that the Social Insurance must first asess your health problems, and then base their decision on that assessment. This is highly problematic for people with "invisible" illnesses such as chronic pain or psychological disorders. If you can't "prove" you suffer, you don't get money. Furthermore, you have to keep proving you suffer, in order for company to keep making the payments.

Such an inhumane system!

So, yeah, I am all for a targeted scheme for people with ailmemts, but I wonder how you could solve the big conundrum involving the burden of proof. There are virtually no means of objectivly quantifying a person's sufferring, so, how can we decide who qualifies for the payments and who doesn't?

This is why gov is inefficient at charity. They determine how much money u need or can get, or how much assets u can have what u can earn. They control the amount of charity u can get which is a problem because some people need a lot more help and charity than others, some people need less, some people can actually be helped off assistance with the right help, but gov limits your ability to access therapy or other alternatives that might get u off assistance.

Disability has always existed but only under the current system has it become a situation that makes a person useless unless u can conform to what employers expect. Normally without the state many people with hidden disabilities could still be productive even if not able to conform to certain work environments. What u did was use what talent or ability u did have and maybe u helped your family or worked for yourself in some way so that your disability doesn't prevent u from at least being productive in some way even if not formally employed. The state creates this weird situation where u are either a dependent on handouts, or u are productive in a formal job.

As if there is no inbetween, when normally there would be more flexibility in being dependent to some degree on charity, but productive in the capacity that is reasonable for the person with the disability. No, the Americans with disabilities act that is supposed to help people be accommodated on a job doesn't work because what ends up happening is u will either not get hired or u will have to cope with being the employee they hate working with lol! So it really does not protect people with disabilities to get hired, stay employed, or have your work conditions adjusted to accommodate your disability.

 

[Epsilon0]

"The state creates this weird situation where u are either a dependent on handouts or u are productive in a formal job. As if there is no inbetween..."

You hit the nail on the head, @Final Escape

 

[Worthless_nobody]

It sounds like a good idea on paper but I don't see how it could ever be a reality. I know one thing the for profit healthcare in America is sad. People faced with the choice of "do I get help for my illness and go in debt or bankrupt from an expensive surgery or treatment or do I sit and suffer and wait till it kills me"...it's incredibly sad. I have watched this happen to my own family members.

 

[nw7]

I suggest reading or listening to Andrew Yang's book: The War On Normal People. A "copy" of the audiobook is available on YouTube. I'm half way through it.

 

[Victor.K]

As a Communist I stand against UBI, contrary to popular belief UBI is a right-wing idea who was first proposed by economists from the Chicago School. We Communists believe that everyone should be garanteed to have a job, a house and access to universal healthcare. If everyone has a job there is no need to redistribute money around, also, inflation (and no it doesn't work like Andrew Yang is saying it does).

 

[AlexM]

I said No. First 20 years of my live I lived in Soviet Union, now in Russia. Everybody had job, medicine and education (included higher) - all of this was guaranteed by the communist government. Moreover was banned to be unemployed, earn a living with rental costs or interest rate or entrepreneurship, to be self-employed was banned as well. Job, medicine and higher education were real suck. Russian engineers and doctors were glad to work in MacDonald's and gas-stations if they could escaped to West from the communist heaven. There was only employer - the government. You could go to work and do nothing, nobody couldn't be fired. Government has guaranteed a salary for everybody. In faсt that was UBI. For example trashy russian bicycle weighing 40 pounds cost like half of month doctors salary, color-TV costs 5 salaries, compact sedan auto - 40 salaries. Food, meds, clothes, services - everything was terrible, and people didn't have enough to eat. That was our price for UBI. Thank you, but never more!

 

[Victor.K]

I said No. First 20 years of my live I lived in Soviet Union, now in Russia. Everybody had job, medicine and education (included higher) - all of this was guaranteed by the communist government. Moreover was banned to be unemployed, earn a living with rental costs or interest rate or entrepreneurship, to be self-employed was banned as well. Job, medicine and higher education were real suck. Russian engineers and doctors were glad to work in MacDonald's and gas-stations if they could escaped to West from the communist heaven. There was only employer - the government. You could go to work and do nothing, nobody couldn't be fired. Government has guaranteed a salary for everybody. In faсt that was UBI. For example trashy russian bicycle weighing 40 pounds cost like half of month doctors salary, color-TV costs 5 salaries, compact sedan auto - 40 salaries. Food, meds, clothes, services - everything was terrible, and people didn't have enough to eat. That was our price for UBI. Thank you, but never more!

I thought this was a serious post, do you realize the Soviet Union didn't have universal basic income ?

 

[LivingToLong]

When more and more people are struggling to earn enough to live on (because jobs are harder to come by and/or poorly paid) I think the question 'how do we pay for it?' ought be turned around; how can we NOT find a way to pay for it? Otherwise, what are we condemning people too? The simple fact is that in this modern age people need money to live on, and the economy needs 'money-go-round'. If there are no jobs (which increasingly will be the case as automation takes a firmer grip on production lines etc) then we are effectively sentencing people to poverty and all it entails. That's simply inhuman and oughtn't be countenanced.

Further, a UBI removes the stigma of unemployment and returns dignity to people. It would also, I feel, motivate people into more creative and fulfilling endeavours - make them feel worthwhile. I'd see UBI as a supplement for people who want to earn more but providing a subsistence level income for others.

It's financed, in part, by scraping (or at least re-organisting) existing benefits' systems but also by higher taxation. For sure, there's a great deal to be worked on, to be ascertained and agreed with the idea but I really don't think it can be dismissed out of hand. It's a radical solution but look where we're going - I really don't see what alternatives there are.

 

[AlexM]

I thought this was a serious post, do you realize the Soviet Union didn't have universal basic income ?

Well, but what do you call other than UBI when everybody can take money for nothing, for example reading a newspaper at work and when charges for housing are few dollars per month? We all know what happened with SU in the end, I think you wouldn't like same for you country.

 

[TAW122]

I would support UBI, mainly because in the coming years (like a decade or so from now) there will be many unemployed people due to the changes in the job market and sectors (automation comes to mind) and as a result, AI and robots will take over most labor jobs and even many other jobs, only leaving the engineers, office workers (even their job is at risk, depending on what they do), and service sector still somewhat intact. Fast food and other service related jobs are also at risk for being automated which means less need for human input to do the job that a robot with advanced AI could do. Of course, when it comes to specialists, teachers, and such, there is still a strong need for human input and AI cannot fully replace it, but could supplement it.

What needs to be put in place are checks and balances, as well as regulations to prevent hyper-inflation and/or just blindly handing out income to every legal adult (18+). Also, as far as the current amount, maybe a bit less and also some basics like being able to have food (shared food where everyone collectively gets some), shelter (a common dwelling like a complex/compound where people have small rooms for themselves), clothing, (and some basic necessities, Internet, electricity, a smart phone, etc.). That would be the start and the UBI is basically be a supplement to that. I could get into more details and a lengthy discussion over it but would rather not.

 

[OneBigBlur]

I said No. First 20 years of my live I lived in Soviet Union, now in Russia. Everybody had job, medicine and education (included higher) - all of this was guaranteed by the communist government. Moreover was banned to be unemployed, earn a living with rental costs or interest rate or entrepreneurship, to be self-employed was banned as well. Job, medicine and higher education were real suck. Russian engineers and doctors were glad to work in MacDonald's and gas-stations if they could escaped to West from the communist heaven. There was only employer - the government. You could go to work and do nothing, nobody couldn't be fired. Government has guaranteed a salary for everybody. In faсt that was UBI. For example trashy russian bicycle weighing 40 pounds cost like half of month doctors salary, color-TV costs 5 salaries, compact sedan auto - 40 salaries. Food, meds, clothes, services - everything was terrible, and people didn't have enough to eat. That was our price for UBI. Thank you, but never more!

This is why I don't think Bernie Sanders federal job guarantee is going to work either. Even if I was guaranteed a job I wouldn't be able to do the work with my health problems and I'm sure normal people wouldn't do anything either if they couldn't be fired.