What Would You Do For Work If We Have a UBI?
- Thread starter Claudia Love
- Start date
that’s not how Discussions work If you’re going to claim something you need to be able to back it up otherwise you lose
So if you’re unable to back up with evidence that UBI is sustainable financially then you have nothing more to add
You should try living in society.
I do like that you just dropped the definition thing though.
You and I both know that won't happen.
You think China's social credit score is a UBI program?
Countries have been experimenting with it for a hundred years.
A global pandemic is happening globally!? HOW MYSTERIOUS!
As economically conservative (i.e., against high taxes and government payouts) as I am, I am pro-UBI if it is set at a survivor level (a cost of a room far away from the city center, $300/month food allowance and $100/month extra, so, maybe $1000/month total) if all other social programs will be eliminated. And, of course, UBI is for adults only. Children get maybe extra $300/month food and closing allowance. Otherwise we will have "breading household" centres like we have for now. And, of course, make UBI tax-free so that it will not distort the desire work to earn extra money.
And for the third or fourth time you refuse to answer how being a citizen is work you stated it was so please explain explain you have posted NO facts and refused to answer questions which means you have no argument that you can back up
Last edited:
Whenever it's been tried UBI has resulted in people generally improving their circumstances. The predictability lets them make plans, including pursuing retraining, which leads to better work. The few who will abuse it are just that, the few, and will abuse any system. Theyre just a cost of doing business and a small one at that. You want to see costly abuse, look into corporate welfare.
It was run as an experiment. Experiments end. No one has had the political balls to make it permanent until maybe now.
I wouldn't live on it but for peopke stuck in poverty or unexpected unfortunate events it's a godsend, as the experiments showed their health and economic wellbeing improved dramatically. This is what we want welfare programs to do, yes?
Having a UBI?
Probably see a doctor, get put on antibiotics for 10 days, and drink plenty of water.
LOL.
For real - I'm opposed to UBI.
You often don't know what you're capable of until you have to work for it, not choose to work for it if you feel like it. I think growing up on lower end of a working class life helped me and my sibs enormously.
Keep other elements of the social safety net however.
Probably see a doctor, get put on antibiotics for 10 days, and drink plenty of water.
LOL.
For real - I'm opposed to UBI.
You often don't know what you're capable of until you have to work for it, not choose to work for it if you feel like it. I think growing up on lower end of a working class life helped me and my sibs enormously.
Keep other elements of the social safety net however.
That philosophy doesn't work for all circumstances. The bootstraps story out of poverty is nice but for every person it works for there are more where it didn't. Basic costs need to be met and the truly unfortunate often can't do that no matter how motivated they are. And if they're desperate and short of funds, crime may be the more likely answer if there's no assistance.
BUT its financially unsustainable which is why its abandoned each time for instance above I posted Finland would have had to raise taxes 30% to continue
I don’t believe that the government is capable of efficiently operating such a program and dealing with all of the problems that will ensue. The main problem will be when they asked the crowd how much should they give, the perpetual answer will be ” more more more”!!! The poor man wants to live like the rich man which will lead to certain politicians making Marxist Leninist policies and promises once the can of worms UBI is implemented in a race to the bottom.
Because if I start talking about the concept of UBI as a Pigovian tax on unpaid labor you're just going to throw a fit. So I'm not bothering. You aren't going to be convinced and you don't want a good faith discussion about the concept.
At some point he realized he could get away with asking questions posed in a way to fit his narrative, and then just keep claiming he is right because you wont answer his ridiculous questions. All while not actually making a point. It's like debating/arguing with a poop throwing ape.
Asking for proof that it works as a model is a ridiculous question because it has never been done on a full economic scale. In most cases, it has been with a pool of 2,000 people for 6 months- 2 years. And the results in most cases were not against it being successfull, they were at best inconclusive because even if it did not increase new jobs amongst the pool (and why would it, new jobs wouldn't increase with this, that isn't even the point), the participants showed increased health, increased self confidence, they began to participate in their communities more, there was increased skill/learning. Etc.
To really test this model in the field, 2-3 years is not enough, as one of the benefits of UBI is to give people ability for long-term planning and making mistakes knowing that UBI is guaranteed for life. One possible experiment is to actually guarantee UBI for life to about 5,000 people of different low to average income (I'd say, for people earning $100K a year or less since people who earn more are unlikely to alter their behaviour). So, with $12K/year UBI we are talking about $60M/year experiment. We may collect and use data from it in 5-10 years but will still have to pay on average 50 years. And somehow we should prevent the participants from receiving any other social benefits and avoid self-selection bias.
Any sensible UBI program would clawback the money as income for anyone making above the poverty line so I'd be doing the exact same thing.
One thing people often miss in their analysis of UBI costs is that we would be reallocating money from a whole bunch of separate social services (welfare, unemployment, subsidized housing) and would allow the government(s) to eliminate a whole bunch of departments that would become redundant.
Implementing it would mean a major overhaul so realistically it wouldn't make sense to do piecemeal national moves.
if you post a claim without evidence to back it up it means your WRONG its that simple
back up you claims
I posted proof in Finland to continue the UBI would require a 30% tax increase meaning that finns would have to pay approx 80% in taxes are you willing to give up 80% of your money?
because guess what the majority of people are not willing to pay that much tax
