Universal/Unconditional Basic Income - European Commission starts collection of signatures

  • Thread starter Thread starter arvo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally I am in favour of the principle of UBI , but for the right reasons and done the right way. When I hear the proponents of this scheme talk they fill me with fear that this is yet another free money scheme that will increase government dependency .
 
So for example UBI if done properly should offset salaries , meaning employers can cut salaries by the amount of the UBI without disadvantaging workers . But because it is cheaper to hire people more jobs will be created . Also this will kill off illegal employment. An illegal worker would need to be payed more than a regular worker because he doesn’t have a UBI to draw from . This would thus be a massive dissuaded of illegal immigration .

Also , because of UBI , the importance of things like worker protection and unemployment money decreases . Being fired is no longer such a big deal . In other words , we can dismantle swathes of red tape .

All these are rather conservative arguments but we are not hearing them pitched in the debate . It seems to me nobody wants to convince conservatives or do the UBI in a way that would suit conservatives .
 
27lw said:
Yes UBI is a sweet idea but I believe it just causes inflation from what I have read.
Click to expand...
UBI can’t cause inflation because you aren’t printing money to pay it.

Inflation happens when the value of the currency drops compared to its buying power.

Passing the bill onto the consumer as it were isn’t inflation in its technical term.
VonDerTann said:
UBI will kill productivity and entrepreneurship;
Click to expand...
Myth.
VonDerTann said:
explode public debt;
Click to expand...
Most people don’t understand public debt to begin with so I’ll ask you to spell it out. No sense to a back and forth when no one knows where the goal posts are.
VonDerTann said:
eventually make recipients demand more and more income.
Click to expand...
Why? When you can work to earn more?
 
Just sitting at your computer typing “myth” to what I wrote is absurd, especially when the article I appended explains why I’m correct.
 
arvo said:
UBI is the common good, because it redistributes the income from the capital that is unjustly/partially justly acquired during the history.
Click to expand...
This sounds really good. If everyone gets a UBI of $50,000 per year, without working, and we have free university education, free medical care, free transportation including free air travel, free car travel, free bus, train and ship, free utilities including water, gas and electric, free residential housing with free maintenance, free vacation housing by the beach, free gourmet meals and no taxes then what more can we ask for? Hopefully this will pass by an overwhelming vote in favor. This will make up, at least partly, for the unjustly acquired income by the Russian oligarchs, the Saudi princes and the capitalist businessmen who have been exploiting the working class.
 
Last edited:
Under UBI, is there a minimum amount of hours an able bodied person must work in order to collect checks?
 
Nope. In fact no one has to work at all - they’re just handed money, no strings attached.
 
The lazy part of me will totally sign up of it comes to the US.
I’ve been working hard for a long time and am tired of it.

The thinking part of me wonders what will happen when the money runs out.

But the cynical part of me reasons I might be dead before that happens so who cares?
 
Let’s say in the USA there’s an income redistribution scheme (as proponents of UBI admit that it is) wherein everyone gets $2000 a month.
How does this affect the economy really? The test cases that I have seen are for a certain segment or small sample of a population getting the income.
For instance, does rent tend to increase? Food prices? You name it?

 
Last edited:
Idk why everyone is saying UBI should come in such large sums. Why not view it as a consolidation of already existing welfare programs into a single simple one? Why is it not “Universal Basic Income”? A few hundred dollars per month would do, and those who cannot currently find a job or are otherwise struggling can better survive on part time jobs. And it could reduce bureaucratic overhead tremendously - that’s the point of having it without any requirements or checks. And there is no income trap where a job will pay the same or less than social benefits.

If done properly, and that’s a very big if, it can be a great solution to most issues with the current social welfare programs.
 
A few hundred per month will do…except that it won’t.

One of the arguments against UBI is that people will constantly clamor for more money, under the theory that they need it to “pursue their passion” - or even to pursue sitting on their couch. One of the realities is that UBI is supposed to be enough that you can in fact live off it: so when people are paid to do nothing, nothing is precisely what many of them will do.

Where’s the money going to come from? Andrew Yang’s VAT? In other words, the money comes from where Democrats always look to: taxes.
 
Sorry, UBI is just communism. People should work to earn a living, not be handed it. Charity, not government reallocation of earnings, is how those who cannot work should be supported. We need to stop expecting the government to do everything for us. It’s unsustainable for society, and damaging to the individual in the long run.
 
Why isn’t this argument used against any welfare program the government provides? I am not an American, so I will not comment on the partisan politics in the US. If it was on me, then yes, UBI should be funded from taxes. Why not from the income tax straight away? If it was balanced so that the middle class after tax and UBI income stays the same, the poor get a little more and the rich get a little less - sounds like a lot more efficient version of the redistribution that is happening right now.

I don’t understand why UBI should be enough to live on. I’d say that this is a dangerous proposition and I don’t agree with it in the least. The beauty of UBI is exactly the opposite - it provides a smooth transition from welfare to work, with virtually no downsides that often accompany the current model of welfare benefits.
 
Last edited:
Cirdan_XII said:
So for example UBI if done properly should offset salaries , meaning employers can cut salaries by the amount of the UBI without disadvantaging workers . But because it is cheaper to hire people more jobs will be created .
Click to expand...
Or, as is more likely to happen, the shareholders will increase their profits and the taxpayer subsidises wages. I suppose the maxim “private profits and socialised losses”, would really apply to this model.
 
In the US, half of the people don’t pay taxes. Now, that’s largely because they don’t make enough to pay taxes.

So, how long would an arrangement last that half the country is paying the other half not to work? Now, I’m not totally against the government helping people in need, but this just doesn’t seem like it’s sustainable.
 
You are right in a sense. You also have to deal with the issue of spending habits and money management. A person like Elon Musk is going to a whole lot more than me and I will be able to do a whole lot more than a degenerate gambler. People like Musk or Warren Buffet who are innovators and better with money are penalized and people with terrible spending habits are beneficiaries. Not a good system. Now, that being said, I think having a system in place where someone’s life temporarily goes off the rails there should be a safety net if they cannot get support from family/friends/Church
 
Inquisitor85 said:
Or, as is more likely to happen, the shareholders will increase their profits and the taxpayer subsidises wages. I suppose the maxim “private profits and socialised losses”, would really apply to this model.
Click to expand...
A lot of outsourcing and offshoring is being justified by cheaper wages in other countries. So if UBI could counter that and reduce balance sheet wages by, say, 50%, this would be a massive instrument against offshoring.

And even if shareholders do make more money, you have to see the bigger picture of where the money comes from and where it flows to. Obviously UBI would ultimately be financed through taxes. If corporation taxes, the corporation would indirectely be paying for themselves, if personal taxes, the shareholders would themselves be liable. By the way, the vast majority of shareholders are not super rich tycoons but just large number of people with modest means investing small amounts, or indirectly being shareholders by virtue of putting their money into pension funds, investment funds, life insurances and other stock-based re-investment instruments that are typically used by the middle classes and lower-middle classes to put money aside for their retirement or rainy days. The term, shareholders getting richer is thus often misleadingly usied to connotate something negative.
 
Last edited:
UBI is done properly will mean there is no longer a need to provide lots of free stuff .

UBI essentially replaces most handout programs and massively slashed burocracy as there is no longer any need to test every individual case but it’s just that everybody gets the same .

UBI is an argument against free healthcare , free electricity etc . It gives people the power and the responsibility to chose .

But unfortunately if the progressives are allowed to run away with the idea they will mismanage it and this won’t be what happens .
 
Last edited:
I am speaking from an Irish perspective, here Unemployment Benefit (now called Jobseeker’s Benefit) is referred to as the Dole (as it’s doled out). Also known as the scratch.

Jobseeker’s Benefit is a weekly payment from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection (DEASP) to people who are out of work and are covered by social insurance (PRSI).

So as long as the UBI doesn’t impact workers I’m happy for it to go ahead. It’s taken me years to slowly make my way struggling in crap jobs to finally making decent wages so do not want to jeopardise that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top