Is Universal Basic Income the way forward?

the beer revolu wrote: »

There would be more incentive to work.
For every hour you work, you would be financially rewarded.

Currently you need to earn over a certain ceiling for it to be more beneficial to work than to draw sw.

People are lazy though, I don't think we need to encourage more laziness.

SnuggyBear wrote: »

People are lazy though, I don't think we need to encourage more laziness.

It would reward work better than the system now, does.

Is this not obvious?

the beer revolu wrote: »

It would reward work better than the system now, does.

Is this not obvious?

It rewards the lazy more

the beer revolu wrote: »

Fair play.
I just don't have the patience to be explaining stuff to people who are against things without actually making any effort to understand what it is is being discussed.

It feels like a waste of time when the mind was made up before any engagement.

Very difficult to get it through to that segment of society that see everything in terms of "That guy over there is getting one over on me and I don't like it"

Geuze wrote: »

And receive just 200-220 per week?

I for one will continue working.

Do you expect a skilled person to stay at home for 200-220 per week?

Somebody like an electrician can earn 220 at home or at least 1,000 working - what do you think they will do?

So what changes from the current situation?

boetstark wrote: »

Aspirational nonsense on so many levels

To the contrary...economical necessity and political expediency.

Once half of the poor working schmucks who currently pay for everything lose their jobs to automation it simply becomes unaffordable to pay all of them unemployment benefit. Not enough paying schmucks left to afford it and not enough traditional full employment jobs left to re-deploy the unemployed to.

So a new system has to be introduced that encourages the paying masses to seek out any sort of money making (and thus taxable) opportunity, even if it is just a few hours here and there or selling handicrafts or whatever. All the while keeping them fed and warm enough not to have them revolt.

That's what UBI is.

I used to think that UBI was some socialist utopia for the betterment of society...but since its gaining traction all over the political spectrum I have become a bit more cynical...not to say realistic

greenfarm wrote: »

Don't think it would suit single people, but my wife could easily quit her job to stay home with kids if UBI was a thing here

Working families get absolutely screwed on single earner policy here.

Tax individualisation was a terrible policy. It's touted as a success for getting more women into the workplace outside the home. I'd prefer if other policies were adopted to ensure women worked outside the home but didn't result in the huge growth of two income households.

Think we are better off implementing the 4 day week where possible. Too many issues with UBI. Inflation would be a huge downside. As mentioned before, the civil service unions would make implementing it impossible here. Turkey's and Christmas and all that.

Multiple benefits, better work/life balance, happier, better rested workers, less traffic on the roads. Productivity would increase as people would be focused to get the same work done with one day less.

Water John wrote: »

Much of the opposition to UBI is based on the notion that humans are naturally inclined to be indolent. This has a parallel notion that humans will not innately good. Both are untrue, but ideas that have been used by those in authority to impose controls. UBI I feel will liberate a lot of artistic endeavour.
Would be interesting to study how some used PUP and the time out to improve their personal lives.

humans are not innately good. look at the colonisations of Africa and Americas. nazisim, and more recently bombing of kids in palestine.

I've read a bit about this and an interesting theory, but it will remain a theory in my opinion.

2 things I can't reconcile in my head

1 - let's say the UBI is 200 a week, same as dole now. I get it and my unemployed neighbour gets it. My tax already pays for their dole. So my tax could continue to pay for their UBI, fair enough. So who pays for my UBI? A 3rd neighbour that works? Grand, so who pays for his? I can't because I'm paying the unemployed persons.

2- if point 1 is somehow achievable, how is my unemployed neighbour any better off relative to me? Before UBI, they had 200 a week I had 500 from my job, after tax. Now I have my 500 plus 200. They have gone from having 40% of my purchasing power to under 30%. Relatively, they are now poorer. Unless my tax has increased to pay for all this UBI going on bringing my 700 down in which case I don't see the point.

I presume they don't get UBI plus social welfare? I can't grasp how this would work at all outside a socialist theoretical framework.

Buddy Bubs wrote:

1 - let's say the UBI is 200 a week, same as dole now. I get it and my unemployed neighbour gets it. My tax already pays for their dole. So my tax could continue to pay for their UBI, fair enough. So who pays for my UBI? A 3rd neighbour that works? Grand, so who pays for his? I can't because I'm paying the unemployed persons.

You re working on the premise that government books need to be balanced, but they actually don't, an indefinite deficit can safely be run, in order to fund such a thing. We must always remember, debt is our money supply, and public debt is simply just the public entity of the supply, as apposed to the private sector entity of the supply, I.e. Credit. As long as these debts are serviced and serviceable, everything is hunky dory....

Deleted User wrote:

More taxes. Nice.

Yes, if we maintain the status quo of thinking of running balanced budgets, and keep electing governments that believe in so, this is what more than likely will occur