Ask Lemmy

Yup - I'm for it, in a very specific combination. A universal basic income that is regularly recalculated to ensure that it provides for all basic needs, connected with a flat tax on any income earned through other means and an abolishment of the minimum wage. What it means: taxes become much simpler, the vast majority of people don't need to do them at all. Employers only advertise with net income, so you immediately know what you're getting at the end of the week/month. Since there is no minimum wage (and since one isn't necessary any more due to everyone having their basic needs covered), the economy is more inclusive, since jobs that don't attract as much money but still benefit society like being a musician can be done that much more. Employees have more power since losing their job doesn't mean the threat of losing the ability to afford necessities, meaning they also have a stronger position at the bargaining table.

I wouldn't say it's a strong opinion, but I've never seen a convincing argument that "inflation" (read "greedy bastards") wouldn't immediately wipe out the extra income - which would be very bad if the UBI were to replace other forms of welfare.

Against both because I'm a communist against income and because its almost always paired with eliminating almost all help programs and with a suggested amount that when those two are combined will arguably make things worse for those in the most need,

it's definitely better than nothing, but it's more like a mitigation than a solution. it will need to continually chase some sort of cost of living index

Yes. I'm opposed.

Simply saying "everyone should get enough money from the government to live" has a lot of problems. The most obvious being that cost of living varies substantially from one place to another. And peoples needs vary substantially as well. So where do we set the number?

You'll also need to figure out how to combat the massive inflationary effects that would occur.

But imo, the biggest issue is what happens in the long term. Say a nation gives its citizens a UBI. Now wait 100 years. What happens? Well what happens is that, assuming this doesn't collapse the economy some other way, and assuming this is a democratic nation, everyone will start taking UBI for granted, and will start thinking "you know, if only I had a little more free money, I could afford that nice shirt I saw my neighbor wearing yesterday...". And because "free money for everyone" will be a popular political platform, the UBI amount will go up and up and up, with little thought put into how to continue funding it. The government accrues more and more debt over time funding the program, until finally the government can no longer continue paying its debtors, and the country collapses into chaos.

Instead, I'm in favor of a citizen's dividend, which is tied to the nation's economic output. A good example is how Alaskans get a dividend, since they agreed to allow private companies to extract the oil from their state. Land value taxes could work like this. Carbon taxes could work like this. If you want to make sure everyone is fed and housed, then that is a very noble goal - but it should be accomplished by providing people with food and housing. And I think it is right and fair that the people of a nation should be compensated for the use of their land and the negative externalities they endure - but how much they are paid out should not be coupled to the cost of living. It should be well known to be an independent, unpredictable, and highly variable amount that they can't rely on, so that they never gain the expectation that they will always have endless free money to spend however they please.

I think it is a bad idea and will incentivize landlords to literally raise the rent with the UBI money amount.

We need rent control and anti monopoly practices.

Nothing against it.

But, there has to be sacrifices for it to work. That being, SNAP and Welfare would have to be axed to make room for UBI. Medicare would remain.

And I would want it available for a certain threshold of earners. Like people who're making $0 - $2,000 a month. If you're well off, then it's not for you.

I think that currently a job guarantee is much more practical and doable, and would have much the same benefits. Why would a company get away with treating you like shit or paying like garbage when you can easily get a government job?

It would make reporters stop bitching about the economy and help keep things afloat.

People can buy groceries when they have the money to do so. They may even have a little extra to buy a candy bar, or a gadget or coffee to also boost the economy.

It would allow people to be more productive since stress destroys your ability to function properly.

And most importantly: nobody should worry about a roof over their head or where their next meal is coming from.

It’s shit.

A bandage on top of the festering open wound that is capitalism does not help anyone long term.

I have two strong opinions about basic income.

I'll be retired and collecting a government cheque lot before we get it in Canada.

I am 100% behind a basic income.

I guess I do. I'm mostly in favor but not like super firm about it. Except in the context of as automation reduces the amount of work needed I believe it's one of only a few options without which society is at serious risk. The other main option is to drastically reduce working hours without changing pay to increase number of jobs. I actually prefer the latter.

Thanks for asking, I do not.