• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Let's debate "UBI"

idea

Question Everything
That wouldn't be an UBI. The idea of UBI is that it is unconditional.

I think the point could be - give ppl time to get through school, the choice to be an artist or musician or writer or other other low-paying (for most) job. Take care of those with medical issues without hassle.

I only see it working - food, electricity, transportation, enough housing- it takes work, need strong incentives to work or no food, no clean water, no trash service... ppl aren't going to do those jobs without incentive.

Everyone would get it, but limited in how you spend it. Some things - alcohol, cigarettes, voting - would need to be earned through work.
 
Last edited:

idea

Question Everything
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?

Have to buy car/alcohol/house with $$ from your job - would not lose UBI.

UBI for all, just have to work to get nicer things :)

Ppl get stuck on welfare because they are penalized for getting a job - lose welfare if they get job, this isn't good.

To incentivise work, would need to make it UBI for all, regardless of income. Work would only help you. You would get UBI + $work.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
So how are you defining "quasi-slavery labor"? Is it any job that is difficult?

Any job that wouldn't get done for the currently paid wages (or at least nowhere close to the current value) unless under the threat of facing severe hardships such as starvation.

The latter is true. So how do you fix this?

What can be stated can be argued and evidenced. Do that first.

So everybody gets the same UBI pay regardless of chosen lifestyle? If so, ether some people will be over paid, or UBI will not cover basic expenses for a lot of people due to lifestyle choices.

I have never seen any UBI proposal that is intended to cover the cost of all possible lifestyle choices.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Any job that wouldn't get done for the currently paid wages (or at least nowhere close to the current value) unless under the threat of facing severe hardships such as starvation.
So how do you get a person to go out and pick tomatoes in the hot sun when they can just sit at home and live for free?
What can be stated can be argued and evidenced. Do that first.
If you are paying somebody $70,000 UBI, how do you get them to toil a hard job?
I have never seen any UBI proposal that is intended to cover the cost of all possible lifestyle choices.
I'm not talking about that, I'm asking about your ideas. What kind of lifestyle will UBI cover?
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Different type of currency, like food stamps.
But if somebody is using UBI to buy food, pay bills and the important stuff, this allows them to use their other money to buy luxuries. How is this different than using their other money to buy the important stuff, and using UBI to buy luxuries? What does this accomplish?
 

idea

Question Everything
But if somebody is using UBI to buy food, pay bills and the important stuff, this allows them to use their other money to buy luxuries. How is this different than using their other money to buy the important stuff, and using UBI to buy luxuries? What does this accomplish?

It would have to be separate - even rich people could only use their UBI currency to buy food/necessities. Perhaps the rich would stop using it, want better food, better housing etc. and if unused for some period of time it would go back to the government.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
So how do you get a person to go out and pick tomatoes in the hot sun when they can just sit at home and live for free?

Same way it works for any other job.

If you are paying somebody $70,000 UBI, how do you get them to toil a hard job?

Did anyone mention this specific number? I am curious. In a more realistic scenario, the optimistic aim would be getting citizens at or barely above the poverty line with UBI.

I'm not talking about that, I'm asking about your ideas. What kind of lifestyle will UBI cover?

My ideas? I only support UBI as a compromise.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
It would have to be separate - even rich people could only use their UBI currency to buy food/necessities. Perhaps the rich would stop using it, want better food, better housing etc. and if unused for some period of time it would go back to the government.
No, the rich would use UBI to buy food, clothes, and pay bills and use all their other wealth to buy luxuries.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Same way it works for any other job.
The other jobs are not difficult. I'm talking about the difficult jobs.
Did anyone mention this specific number? I am curious. In a more realistic scenario, the optimistic aim would be getting citizens at or barely above the poverty line with UBI.
It was mentioned UBI paying everybody enough to live comfortably without pressure to work for it. Obviously that is well above the poverty line.
My ideas? I only support UBI as a compromise.
Compromise for what?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
So how do you get a person to go out and pick tomatoes in the hot sun when they can just sit at home and live for free?
The same way you get people to pick tomatoes today. UBI would be a citizen right. The tomato picking would be done, as it is now, by immigrants who don't have a US passport (yet).
If you are paying somebody $70,000 UBI, how do you get them to toil a hard job?

I'm not talking about that, I'm asking about your ideas. What kind of lifestyle will UBI cover?
A modest lifestyle without fear or the need to take a job you don't like. In the US that would be between $20,000 and $30,000 pa (+ free healthcare). With that, you can either have a used car or live in a city where you'd have to use public transportation. You can afford either to eat out once a month or buy a crate of beer.
Basically, it is just above living on social security - but without the fear that that may be cut or the hoops you have to jump through to get it.
UBI would replace most kinds of transfer money while cutting down on administration. It would be a right, so no need to control for eligibility other than proof of citizenship.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Everyone would get it, but limited in how you spend it. Some things - alcohol, cigarettes, voting - would need to be earned through work.
You still think that you need to control people's behaviour. You don't. If someone likes to smoke or drink, let them. Others may want to eat out, go to the cinema or the opera. Their choice.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I have not given the matter of UBI a whole lot of thought, but here in Brazil far too many people put expectations of income well ahead of any other considerations when choosing their careers.

That results in far too many people spending a lot of time and effort at becoming members of low productive, high-maintenance yet highly favored or even prestiged careers - priests, lawyers, military, police, magistrates, politicians (and more recently, "anti-politicians"). All of those are clogged with people driven first and foremost by a fear of not having other means of paying their bills. Far too often those insecurities also manifest in persistent quests for political influence, narrative control and government favor and protections. Last but not least, it also smothers the prospects of quite a few strategic yet underfunded and underprestiged careers, such as teaching, scientific, ethical and ecological research, scientific education.

If UBI can spare our communities from that drain and encourage people to actually care about the continued viability of their own communities, then it is very difficult to imagine any reason why it would not be a boon for us all.
 

anotherneil

Well-Known Member
Just for fun, I decided to ask ChatGPT ot answer these OP questions; I'm posting the response from ChatGPT and I'm going to comment on the answers it provided:

### **What is Universal Basic Income (UBI)?**
Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a policy where a government provides all citizens with a regular, unconditional sum of money. The payment is "universal" (given to everyone) and "basic" (meant to cover essential living expenses). The idea is that this income helps individuals meet their basic needs regardless of their employment status.

There's a risk of inflation with this sort of policy, making it a policy that may not be economically sustainable, thus a fiscally unsound policy. The reason there's a risk of inflation is because such a policy would require the government to provide more funding than what is available from taxation, even if the tax rate is at an optimal level for maximizing revenue.

In relation to this, some might argue that this also means that the incentive to work could be undermined; although I think this would technically be correct, I don't agree with having such "soft" slavery as a matter of policy. Technically, I would say that having such a policy in the US would be unconstitutional (it infringes on the 13th Amendment prohibition of slavery or involuntary servitude).

A UBI, as described here, is utopian.

### **What's it for?**
UBI aims to alleviate poverty, reduce inequality, and provide financial security. It is intended to ensure that everyone can afford basic needs such as food, shelter, and healthcare, without needing to rely on employment or welfare programs. UBI is also seen as a response to automation and the changing job market, where traditional employment may become scarce.

I don't agree that it'll have any effect on inequality, but at the same time I don't think inequality is a problem that needs to be solved.

This is what it would be for if it could be economically sustainable & fiscally sound policy; with enough implementation of automation & other forms of technology that increase access to goods and services, maybe it can be economically sustainable.

### **What does it do?**
UBI provides individuals with a steady income floor, which can reduce financial stress and give them the freedom to pursue education, creative work, entrepreneurship, or care for family members. It simplifies the social safety net by eliminating the need for various means-tested welfare programs.

It it could work, then such a simplification would make it more efficient, such as by cutting back on bureaucratic overhead, meaning more financial resources available for a UBI.

### **Why have it?**
Proponents of UBI argue that it can:
- **Reduce poverty and inequality** by giving everyone a financial safety net.
- **Support people in transitioning through economic changes**, such as automation eliminating jobs.
- **Boost economic activity** by increasing consumer spending.
- **Encourage innovation and entrepreneurship**, as people may feel more secure taking risks if their basic needs are met.
- **Simplify welfare systems**, cutting administrative costs of other social programs.

To reiterate, I don't think it'll have any effect on inequality, and I don't think inequality is a problem that needs to be solved.

### **Why not have it?**
Critics argue that UBI could:
- **Be too expensive** and require high taxes to fund, possibly leading to economic inefficiencies.
- **Create inflation**, as an influx of money might cause prices to rise, reducing the purchasing power of the UBI.
- **Disincentivize work**, though evidence on this is mixed and depends on the size of the UBI and its design.
- **Undermine existing welfare programs**, potentially harming those who need additional or specialized support.
- **Fail to address structural inequalities**, such as unequal access to housing or healthcare.

I'm not convinced it would be too expensive, requiring high taxes, it if was economically sustainable and implemented based on fiscally sound policy.

### **Has it been tried before?**
UBI has been tested in various forms, including:
- **Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend**: Alaska provides residents an annual dividend from oil revenues, a partial UBI.
- **Finland (2017-2018)**: A two-year trial gave 2,000 unemployed people a monthly basic income. It showed positive effects on well-being but limited impact on employment rates.
- **Stockton, California (2019-2021)**: A guaranteed income experiment provided $500 a month to low-income residents, showing improved mental health and economic security.

I don't think it's necessary to have an impact on employment rates; this gets back to "soft" slavery issue that I brought up, earlier.

### **Is there a right way and wrong way to implement it?**
The success of UBI depends on its design:
- **Funding**: Whether it's funded by taxes, wealth redistribution, or cutting other welfare programs matters. A sustainable source of revenue is critical.
- **Amount**: The UBI amount must be sufficient to cover basic needs but not so high that it discourages work or creates inflationary pressures.
- **Integration with other social programs**: How UBI interacts with or replaces existing welfare programs affects its impact on vulnerable populations.

What I had in mind when I posed this question was in the context of a fiscally sound policy; for example, if the policy on the amount allocated to funding the payouts was a percentage of tax revenue, and each individual payout was a portion of that, rather than a fixed amount (e.g. $1,000 per month), then at least this would make it sustainable in the sense that the government doesn't have to create money, resulting in inflation.

Using wealth redistribution as a means of funding a UBI is a bad idea, because it undermines the incentive to work or invest.

It's not sustainable for a UBI to necessarily be an amount that's sufficient to cover basic needs; this doesn't mean it can't be or won't be; in order for it to be sustainable, those who would exclusively rely on a sustainable UBI would have to tighten their own belts along with the rest of the economy. Maybe there could be a fiscal UBI policy that would involve something that mitigates this in some manner without rendering it unsustainable, but even that might have its own limits.

I don't think a UBI policy ought to be opposed on the grounds of "discouraging" work; if the economy is functioning well with only a work force of 80% or 50% or 10% or 1% or even 0.01% of the population, then I think that's a great achievement by society that it shouldn't be ashamed of at all.

(to be continued)
 

anotherneil

Well-Known Member
(continued)

### **Are there religious reasons for or against it?**
Religious perspectives vary:
- **For UBI**: Some religious teachings advocate for the dignity of human life and helping the poor, which aligns with UBI’s goal to eliminate poverty and provide basic security.
- **Against UBI**: Other religious views might argue that providing income without requiring work goes against the values of responsibility and contributing to society.

I don't think a UBI ought to be opposed on the grounds that it renders the demand for charity low or nonexistent, even for the sake of some sort of religious agenda.

Regarding opposition to income without requiring able-bodied individuals to work, or the "if you don't work, then you don't eat" principle, it depends. I can understand the idea back in ancient times of discouraging people from the idea of taking something from someone who put in the time and effort to produce a good or service, and giving it to someone else who's a lazy bum.

Today, circumstances are different; we have practically created society to wall people off from resources for the sake of property rights; in this case, there's an entirely different problem from some people being lazy bums.

Take the case of Ernie Wayne Tertelgte as an example of someone who wouldn't be considered a lazy bum, wasn't trying to mooch off of anyone else, and was putting in the effort on his own to work so he could eat; I couldn't find a good article to cite, so I referred again to ChatGPT & asked it to provide 3 paragraphs about him and his unlicensed fishing case:

Ernie Wayne Tertelgte is a Montana man who gained attention in 2013 after refusing to comply with state fishing laws. He was arrested for fishing without a license and appeared in court, where he argued that he did not need to abide by government regulations because he was living "off the land" and exercising his natural right to feed himself. Tertelgte claimed that the laws governing fishing were illegitimate in his view, as they interfered with his basic human rights.
In court, Tertelgte made several sovereign citizen-style arguments, stating that he did not recognize the authority of the court or the government over his actions. He insisted that he was a "natural living man" and that his right to fish was derived from natural law, not man-made legal systems. His defiance and courtroom behavior, including refusing to answer basic legal questions and addressing the judge with unconventional statements, drew public attention and videos of the proceedings went viral.
Despite his arguments, the court ruled against him, and he was fined for fishing without a license. Tertelgte’s case became a symbol for the sovereign citizen movement, which advocates for individuals rejecting government authority based on their interpretation of constitutional or natural rights.

I think he has a legitimate point, except that, in principle, it disregards the tragedy of the commons dilemma: Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia

Regardless, he's an example of someone who symbolically represents an individual who has been "walled off" from having access to basic resources that are necessary to survive. In his case, he probably could've simply avoided all this trouble by paying maybe $20 (or whatever it is) for a fishing license, or finding a place where he could fish without needing a license to fish, but the problem is that there might not be anything like this anywhere near his home.

In general, this is the sort of situation that homeless individuals, individuals living in poverty, or individuals who do are willing to work but can't because one wants to hire them, are in. They're in this impossible situation, one that's artificially unfair (or unfair practically by design), and are figuratively pushed over this economic ledge into a fiscal abyss by society's economic policy of property rights walls.

This reminds me of a scene in the 1978 Superman movie where - SPOILER ALERT - Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) uses a hydraulically movable subway wall that he can control, to push one of the detectives trailing one of Luthor's minions, Otis (Ned Beatty), in a subway train tunnel, onto the tracks in front of a moving subway train and killing the detective.

Anyhow, when people in this impossible situation try to get around these property rights walls (which means, in the legal context, trespassing and stealing), they are committing crimes, according to today's rules, standards, and conventions of society. It seems like it's the political RW (particularly by its religious members who identify as Christian) that advocates for being more forceful and heavy handed about invoking and imposing law enforcement and locking them up in prisons to deal with them; I suspect that this is an indirect attempt at coercion by them to get these individuals in this impossible situation to join their religion, but getting converted to Islam in many cases is an unintended side effect (or, maybe it is intended for some even more ulterior type of religious conflict agenda - ?).

### **Can it help or destroy the economy?**
- **Help**: By providing a stable income floor, UBI can boost consumption and economic activity. It may also foster innovation and entrepreneurship.
- **Destroy**: Critics argue it could lead to inflation, unsustainable debt, or higher taxes that would slow economic growth.

I think a sustainable UBI can raise the income floor, but not necessarily provide a stable income floor.

### **Does it get rid of the incentive to work?**
This is one of the most debated aspects. While some believe that UBI could reduce the incentive to work, especially for lower-wage jobs, studies from UBI trials suggest that most people still pursue work, but they may feel empowered to choose jobs that are more meaningful or align better with their skills.

I think it can reduce the incentive to work, but in 2 different and distinct possible ways; one is with recourse, and the other is without recourse.

The one with recourse - by which I mean that the UBI payouts are dividends as a function of the performance of the economy (they payouts go up when the economy is performing well & down when not performing well) - would still be able to incentivize people to work when the payouts are too low to meet their needs; on its own, this is not susceptible to inflation.

The one without recourse - by which I mean UBI payouts are some guaranteed fixed amount; this will be susceptible to inflation, the economy's on a slippery slope, and access to basic resources at best remain as bad for some (those same individuals in that impossible economic situation I discussed earlier are essentially still stuck there), or the economy overall gets worse for everyone.

I see nothing wrong with reduction in incentive to work with recourse, but a reduction in incentive to work without recourse is the one with a recipe for economic disaster.

### **Is it socialism?**
UBI is often associated with socialist ideas because it involves wealth redistribution. However, UBI itself does not imply state control of industries or central planning. Many argue UBI can coexist with capitalism and a free market by supporting consumer spending and individual financial freedom.

The version without recourse, that I described earlier, would be socialism, and entails wealth redistribution.

The version with recourse, that I described earlier, would be consistent with a free market system, and rather than being wealth redistribution or socialism, would be compensation in exchange for being walled off from basic resources, whether it's a pond or river on public land with fish, or a privately owned land with apple orchards or other hunter-gatherer resources.

In exchange for such a dividend-based variation of a "UBI", recipients must acknowledge and accept property rights laws, laws requiring fishing licenses, etc. Regardless of whether it would be considered a fine or forfeiture of a part of their "UBI" payout, they have to pay up for fishing without a license, and it would be justifiable to require fishing licenses.

### **Does it contradict a free market?**
UBI does not inherently contradict a free market. In fact, it can be seen as a way to ensure that all citizens have the purchasing power to participate in the market. However, concerns arise over how it's funded—if taxes on businesses or high earners are too high, it could hinder private sector growth.

I think that the version without recourse (that I described earlier) undermines a free market (which essentially contradicts it), but the version with recourse (that I described earlier) does not, in itself, contradict a free market.

The idea behind advocating a free market system is that it's better for economic growth, but this is basically an assertion based on the historical results of a free market; I don't consider high taxes per se as contradictory to a free market in itself. The premise in question is that a free market system with high taxes would still perform better than a heavily regulated market system, with the same high tax rate.

I think that the dividend-based variation of a "UBI" is more compatible and more consistent with a free market, and it could produce a more efficient economy, which could lead to a lower need of government revenue & in turn that means being able to lower taxes.

### **Will it reduce crime?**
Studies have suggested that improving financial stability through guaranteed income can reduce certain types of crime, such as theft and other crimes related to poverty. However, UBI alone may not address the root causes of all crime, which often include broader social and economic factors.

I agree with this; a sustainable UBI policy can reduce crime & in fact I think it could drastically reduce some financial/property acquisition types of crimes (armed robbery, strong arm robbery, theft, shoplifting, muggings, pickpocketing), and maybe directly or indirectly other crimes; I'm not including scam or fraud in this list because I'm presuming that those with the skills to commit such crimes have the skills to find legal employment (note they also don't involve "face-to-face" interactions or in-person presence with victims).
 

wellwisher

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


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.


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.


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.


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.
UBI is not about a social safety net, but a social safety hammock, since you say you will have enough to recline forever. A safety net gets you by until you can get back on your feet, but with UBI you are not required to stand, never mind use your feet.

The first problem would be implementation. As an example. I read about a single woman with children, who as a family, received the equivalent of about $45K per year in welfare benefits, in the state of Connecticut. If she had been given that money directly, she could leave the classification of poverty and enter lower middle class. But she is still classified as poor, because so much of her benefits pays for the bureaucracy. Big Government has ways to game the system. Like the song Hotel California, you can check out any time you wan, but you can never leave. The DNC benefits by the poor and will not give this up. The cost will double.

The USA did a test of UBI during COVID, where Harris and Biden paid able bodied people not to work. If you recall this caused supply chain problems, since there was nobody there to do the work for the supply of basic needs. That led to inflation. The next logical step is those in UBI would be whining, they need more money to compensate for the inflation. As a the free money goes up, more and more people will retire from work, causing the supply chain and inflation problem to expand. You cannot disincentivize work or else the system collapses.

UBI is a pipe dream, house of cards scam, designed to destroy the economy, until everyone forced to move into Socialism; Marshall Law. Then everyone is equally poor and the conditional jealousy of Liberalism is appeased.

The only time UBI works is when you are a child under the care of your parents. Children get what they need and do not have to work. They go to school and get to play. UBI is not designed for adults, since who will then take care of the children with UBI? Abortion may not be enough to cover all this little looses ends. It a right of passage until you are an adult. Even the Church believes that hard work is a virtue, and idle time is the devil's playground. While in religion, children are exempt since you are only young once.

After the Great Depression, the Government created jobs like building the National Parks, so Fathers could UBI their families. That is more in line with a country that will thrive in the future, which it did. Socialism is like a drug that alleviates some discomfort, but has unexpected side effects. Say we are al in a boat and we have a leak and are taken in water. UBI will not expect to have to help. They think they can sit there and wait for others to bail out the boat. One by one the worker stop until the ship sinks. On the other hand, the old way was women and children get the lifeboats; UBI, while the men keep bailing the ship as they sail toward port. Which culture survives?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
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).
Unless I missed it, has any one mentioned where this money would come from?

"In 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau counted 331.4 million people living in the United States; more than three-quarters (77.9%) or 258.3 million were adults, 18 years or older."

So lets say the UBI is for people 18 years and older and is $1200 per month.

258.3 million x $1200 =$309,960,000,000 per month.

Over $3 billion per month($3.7 trillion per year). Where does this money come from?
 
Last edited:

Koldo

Outstanding Member
The other jobs are not difficult. I'm talking about the difficult jobs.

Be it an easy job or a hard job, the same rationale is applicable.

It was mentioned UBI paying everybody enough to live comfortably without pressure to work for it. Obviously that is well above the poverty line.

Comfortably? That is not the case.

Compromise for what?

Keeping capitalism. UBI is nowadays often purported to be a necessity in the (near) future to keep capitalism going due to automation.
 
Top