Heyo
Veteran Member
Hi,
multiple users have said they'd be interested to know more about UBI. So this is the thread to discuss it. (I know it's in Political Debates but there is no equivalent discussion sub forum. If there is a more appropriate one, please move.)
I think most of us aren't fit enough to debate. Let's first see what UBI is before we go into the debate, OK?
First the basics:
Universal - everyone (every citizen) gets it. (There are discussions about children.)
Basic - it should cover the basic needs, food, shelter, healthcare and a little allowance to partake in social life.
Income - it is paid monthly like a wage.
There are multiple models on how to implement UBI. One model is the negative tax. This may not be the best for countries without a functioning population register (e.g. the US). The idea is to have one central agency to handle incoming and outgoing money. This would make the need for other agencies obsolete. (Small government!) It can be implemented by using a progression curve that allows for negative taxes.
There are more models. I leave it to the more knowledgable to describe those.
And, of course, the always asked question when it comes to government spending (except for military, police and subsidies): How to finance that?
First, most of it is money that gets paid anyway, only under a multitude of names: welfare, pensions, unemployment benefit, etc. A part is compensated by shrinking government agencies. (Central agency, no need for means testing, etc.) The rest is going to be financed by higher taxes and here everyone has their preferred target. The most rational would be corporations. The higher the automatisation, the higher the taxes. Or my preferred method, paying taxes when you're dead (100% inheritance tax). But that is too radical for most people.
Any questions?
What's your preferred method?
How would you like it financed?
If you don't like UBI, why are you still here?
multiple users have said they'd be interested to know more about UBI. So this is the thread to discuss it. (I know it's in Political Debates but there is no equivalent discussion sub forum. If there is a more appropriate one, please move.)
I think most of us aren't fit enough to debate. Let's first see what UBI is before we go into the debate, OK?
First the basics:
Universal - everyone (every citizen) gets it. (There are discussions about children.)
Basic - it should cover the basic needs, food, shelter, healthcare and a little allowance to partake in social life.
Income - it is paid monthly like a wage.
There are multiple models on how to implement UBI. One model is the negative tax. This may not be the best for countries without a functioning population register (e.g. the US). The idea is to have one central agency to handle incoming and outgoing money. This would make the need for other agencies obsolete. (Small government!) It can be implemented by using a progression curve that allows for negative taxes.
There are more models. I leave it to the more knowledgable to describe those.
And, of course, the always asked question when it comes to government spending (except for military, police and subsidies): How to finance that?
First, most of it is money that gets paid anyway, only under a multitude of names: welfare, pensions, unemployment benefit, etc. A part is compensated by shrinking government agencies. (Central agency, no need for means testing, etc.) The rest is going to be financed by higher taxes and here everyone has their preferred target. The most rational would be corporations. The higher the automatisation, the higher the taxes. Or my preferred method, paying taxes when you're dead (100% inheritance tax). But that is too radical for most people.
Any questions?
What's your preferred method?
How would you like it financed?
If you don't like UBI, why are you still here?