Let's debate "UBI"

[anotherneil]

UBI - "Universal Basic Income"

It goes by other names, like Guaranteed Income or Unconditional Income.

What is it?

What's it for?

What does it do?

Why have it?

Why not have it?

Has it been tried before?

Is there a right way and wrong way to implement it?

Are there religious reasons for or against it?

Can it help or destroy the economy?

Does it get rid of the incentive to work?

Is it socialism?

Does it contradict a free market?

Will it reduce crime?

Answer whichever questions you want & pose your own questions, as well.

I'm pressed for time, so I can't provide my own thoughts on the topic right now; I'll do that later (but you might be able to find some of my thoughts on it by scouring my other posts on other threads).

 

[Kathryn]

It is used all the time by the military, who call it COLA. The Cost-of-Living Appropriation or something like that. The Cost of Living Allowance.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I know the Journal Nature has published material on the topic.

Money for nothing: the truth about universal basic income

Several projects are testing the idea of doling out funds that people can use however they want.

www.nature.com

 

[Kathryn]

I know the Journal Nature has published material on the topic.

Money for nothing: the truth about universal basic income

Several projects are testing the idea of doling out funds that people can use however they want.

www.nature.com

The Cost Of Living Allowance varies from post to post. Some posts get nothing and other posts get a lot.

 

[an anarchist]

Does it contradict a free market?

If “free market” means how I mean it when I say it, then yea. Government needs to be non existent for a free market to truly exist. In my opinion.

Is it socialism?

How I understand socialism, yes. Socialism is simply government control over economic sectors. In this case they are in control of a portion of everyone’s money which itself is an economic sector.

Does it get rid of the incentive to work?

Obviously some people would work less/not at all if it is viable with UBI.

 

[an anarchist]

Why have it?

Why not have it?

Some people I’ve talked to here suppose that technology/AI will become advanced enough in order to replace human workers.

I think this is flawed logic. More specialized and advanced jobs comes with technology. Maybe all the burger flipping jobs will be replaced by robots, but people have to code and maintain the robots.

So if we enable people to live without bettering themselves through acquiring skills or education, society and technological progress can stagnate.

There will always be “unintended” consequences when you try to control, grapple, and manipulate the market through the function of coercion (government). It cannot be reliably done.

 

[Koldo]

Some people I’ve talked to here suppose that technology/AI will become advanced enough in order to replace human workers.

I think this is flawed logic. More specialized and advanced jobs comes with technology. Maybe all the burger flipping jobs will be replaced by robots, but people have to code and maintain the robots.

There is no reason to presume that there will be room for that many coders and robot upkeepers. If anything, it is more reasonable to presume the opposite.

 

[an anarchist]

There is no reason to presume that there will be room for that many coders and robot upkeepers. If anything, it is more reasonable to presume the opposite.

I think we cannot even imagine the complexity of technology that is to come. I guess we will have to wait and see who is right on this specific issue, as there is no way of knowing for sure in advance.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

More specialized and advanced jobs comes with technology. Maybe all the burger flipping jobs will be replaced by robots, but people have to code and maintain the robots.

I would still need to be convinced about the 1:1 job ratio problem, where jobs that are automated are replaced in equal measure by new jobs

So if we enable people to live without bettering themselves through acquiring skills or education, society and technological progress can stagnate.

It is not entirely obvious what the causes of stagnation are exactly. I've known too many people that work 2 jobs, and never read books. Without typical work, I think people might start doing the work they want to do.

 

[Heyo]

UBI - "Universal Basic Income"

It goes by other names, like Guaranteed Income or Unconditional Income.

What is it?

What's it for?

What does it do?

Why have it?

Why not have it?

Has it been tried before?

Is there a right way and wrong way to implement it?

Are there religious reasons for or against it?

Can it help or destroy the economy?

Does it get rid of the incentive to work?

Is it socialism?

Does it contradict a free market?

Will it reduce crime?

Answer whichever questions you want & pose your own questions, as well.

I'm pressed for time, so I can't provide my own thoughts on the topic right now; I'll do that later (but you might be able to find some of my thoughts on it by scouring my other posts on other threads).

Too many questions at once, so I will pick some and maybe come back to others later.

What is it? What's it for? What does it do? Why have it?

It's the idea to give every citizen enough money to secure their living without the pressure to work for it, or have any other conditions attached. It would instantly remove poverty from the country that provides it.

Is there a right way and wrong way to implement it?

There are many ideas on how to implement it, direct payment, negative taxes, free access to basic needs, etc.
It doesn't matter much how it is implemented, the only way to wrongly implement it is to not comply with the basic idea. i.e. too low for a secure living or coupled to restrictions.

Does it get rid of the incentive to work?

No. There are many people who have enough money to retire in comfort, but they keep on working. Existential dread is not the only motivation to work.

Will it reduce crime?

That depends. There are still people who feel that criminal activity is the only way to secure a living for themselves. Those crimes would disappear, but for most western countries with a working social security net, that won't be much.

 

[Kfox]

It is used all the time by the military, who call it COLA. The Cost-of-Living Appropriation or something like that. The Cost of Living Allowance.

COLA is part of your pay when you work. UBI is getting paid even though you are not working.

 

[idea]

I'd support UBI if it came with some major incentives to get a job and work.

If those on UBI
- were not allowed to vote, no say in how tax $ is spent - it is not their money, not their say.
- were not allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes etc. (something like food stamps, limited things you could buy with your UBI)
- were not allowed to buy land (only basic rental housing, basic food, basic public transportation)
- UBI should be given to everyone regardless of need. (Don't lose it if you get a job)

Allow it with major incentives to push people to work.
I do believe those who can work should work.

UBI for those who are still in school, for those with medical conditions, but there should be major incentives to get a job.

 

[Kathryn]

COLA is part of your pay when you work. UBI is getting paid even though you are not working.

I'm only talkin about COLA. I don't know anything about UBI.

 

[Kfox]

It's the idea to give every citizen enough money to secure their living without the pressure to work for it, or have any other conditions attached. It would instantly remove poverty from the country that provides it.

So if I live irresponsibly, (have a bunch of kids I can’t afford to support, live in an expensive city, buy things I can’t afford, etc.) do I get more income than my brother who lives a more financially responsible lifestyle?

No. There are many people who have enough money to retire in comfort, but they keep on working. Existential dread is not the only motivation to work.

Those people are the exception; they are usually business owners who are motivated to see their business grow. But those people are the exception to the rule. Most people work because they have to; those people laying bricks, flipping burgers over a hot grill, or doing road construction in 90 degree weather, those people are not toiling because they like toiling, they are working because they must work in order to live. If those people were given enough money to live without working, they would immediately quit their jobs. But those jobs are important, somebody has to work them. So in order to get someone to work those jobs, would require a massive increase in pay. This would result in that burger and fries that used to cost $8.00 will now cost $20.00. That plumber job that used to cost $200 to fix your pipes, will now cost $500 to fix your pipes. And since the UBI is based on the idea that a burger and fries costs $8.00 and Plumbers charge $200 to fix your pipes; which will mean the UBI will no longer cover your cost of living anymore. So what do you do?

 

[Kfox]

I'd support UBI if it came with some major incentives to get a job and work.

If those on UBI
- were not allowed to vote, no say in how tax $ is spent - it is not their money, not their say.
- were not allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes etc. (something like food stamps, limited things you could buy with your UBI)
- were not allowed to buy land (only basic rental housing, basic food, basic public transportation)
- UBI should be given to everyone regardless of need. (Don't lose it if you get a job)

Allow it with major incentives to push people to work.
I do believe those who can work should work.

UBI for those who are still in school, for those with medical conditions, but there should be major incentives to get a job.

So if you are not allowed to vote, buy a car, a house, and are basically required to live like a poor person, yet you get a job that affords you to be able to live better, what happens if you choose to say.... buy a car? Do you lose your UBI?

 

[Kfox]

I'm only talkin about COLA. I don't know anything about UBI.

My point is; UBI is not the same as COLA.

 

[Kathryn]

My point is; UBI is not the same as COLA.

Like I said, I am only talking about COLA.

 

[anotherneil]

Thank you, to everyone participating in this thread; I plan on circling back to this thread to respond to posts and to discuss my ideas and reasons for supporting a UBI, how I think it ought to be implemented, and why.

I'm only talkin about COLA. I don't know anything about UBI.

Well, this thread is about UBI, not COLA. As an introduction to UBI, let's start with this: Universal basic income - Wikipedia

I have a problem with simply implementing it in any arbitrary way; I think there has to be some conditions on it, not those receiving it (because the idea is that everyone receives it), but on how much is distributed.

 

[Kathryn]

Thank you, to everyone participating in this thread; I plan on circling back to this thread to respond to posts and to discuss my ideas and reasons for supporting a UBI, how I think it ought to be implemented, and why.



Well, this thread is about UBI, not COLA. As an introduction to UBI, let's start with this: Universal basic income - Wikipedia

I have a problem with simply implementing it in any arbitrary way; I think there has to be some conditions on it, not those receiving it (because the idea is that everyone receives it), but on how much is distributed.

Like I have said over and over, I am only familiar with the COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE. Not the UBI. Who knows, maybe I will qualify for UBI.

 

[We Never Know]

It is used all the time by the military, who call it COLA. The Cost-of-Living Appropriation or something like that. The Cost of Living Allowance.

Not even near the same as UBI.

Sorry @anotherneil. Just saw your posts #18