As trialled in Finland with a select group of 2000 unemployed people and subsequently ditched in favour of the traditional draconian welfare system. There is a problem with the trial in that it seems to have essentially been a replacement for other benefits, ie status quo, rather than the universal of the name, applied to all citizens.

UBI is, or should/could be, a general subsidy paid to all adults regardless of income from other sources (details to be worked out around additional payments for extra costs due to poor mobility, childcare etc). The amount covers the essentials of living, no more.

Advantages - should eliminate most of the worst poverty; reduction in state monitoring to assess need and efficiency savings on the back of this; complements shift towards flexible/gig/seasonal economy; encourages more positive career choices; work pays - earned income is for enjoyment/investment/savings/whatever; reduces dependence on credit for essential living costs.
Thoughts..

I don't get this part. A billionaire would be paying more into it than receiving from it, so why not they just pay the difference? However you slice it, only the poor would receive the benefit unless you're going to create the money out of thin air.

It's easier to just give everyone a set amount and then claw it back on the tax side of the equation than it is having people constantly reevaluating what's they're getting as their income increases or decreases.

In reality it's the same either way.

If done properly, I would expect that the majority of Americans would receive more from a UBI program than they would pay in taxes to fund it.

The top 10% of earners have ~50% of income. Not to mention it could further be funded through corporate taxation, estate taxation, etc.

What is the level of the free income? Is there any incentive for the unemployed to become employed?

Eh, they get the money from working+UBI so have more money = incentive.

The concept behind UBI is that as a modern society there is so much productivity and wealth being created and yet the benefits are mostly going to the top x%. So we take some of that excess wealth and distribute it evenly to everybody. Everyone gets cut a check of say, $1k per month.

As a society do we really want to incentivize people to work unproductive jobs just so they can pay the bills? Fast food jobs, cashier jobs, manufacturing jobs, etc. People who do these jobs are essentially wasting their time because there are or will be robots or automated systems which will do the same thing but cheaper and more efficient. How much wasted human potential is there because of people worrying about paying rent and working useless jobs? People could be starting their own businesses, create art, work a job that they WANT to do, rather than one they have to do, or they could do whatever they wanted. We're not at that point yet where robots and computers can do all these low skilled jobs but we are likely to approach it in the near future.

That's kind of the futurist view, but due to historical and social views regarding labour and welfare, I don't see that realistically happening anytime soon. Maybe if robots really do take all the jobs and there is another great depression and white people are rioting in the streets it will motivate people to think differently.

^^

Maybe - but I might choose doing nothing for $300/wk than working to make $400/wk.

If I'm handicapping the path towards UBI:

Gradual, thoughtful progression towards UBI +3000
Blood in streets, rioting, etc -6000

I mean you already have billionaires spending the majority of their free time trying to figure out how they can rip healthcare from poor people. That doesn't exactly provide a sense of optimism.

I think just about anything could work, if people had a little trust in each other and believed in a common goal. But obviously that's never going to happen, at least not in the US ...

Maybe societies have just gotten too big.

Maybe it's very different, but it makes me think of ... what do you call them ... dividend payments for native american and alaskan tribes? For royalties, etc?


I like this.

The job only pays $100/week?

In a hypothetical where you get UBI of $300/week, it does.

Yes it is intentional in some UBI concepts that not working at all is a choice some people will make.

I could see myself working ~10 hours a week to bump my 300/week up to 400/week if I was in that circumstance. But realistically it’s more like will people work full time if it bumps their 250/week up to 750/week and like of course they will. Some small fraction of people won’t, but like, who cares.

We don't need everyone to be working. The population is increasing and machines are becoming capable of more jobs.

Label it as universal charity. Everyone is instructed to give the money away. Some keep it, honest and proud people place it in needed areas. Teaches people to be better humans ideally.

I mean you can't really survive on 400/week in a lot of places in the US so most people will supplement their income.

Forget the 'U' part, no bill that gives a billionaire the same check as the homeless person on the street will pass. And a basic income will be the greatest political disaster of all time once the machines take the jobs of the people of average intelligence for whom the 'undreamed of jobs of the future' (a phrase I'm sick of hearing) are beyond their abilities. There will be one political slogan: 'Vote for me and I will give you more!' There isn't money for it so people won't be allowed to vote.

'Blood in the streets' at only -6000 is a great bet.

I agree with this point actually. Minimum wage jobs will never become automated if there's no shortage of people to do them. Plus if higher education could be made more accessible, it could incentivize people to go pursue it. This would increase competition for more skilled labor kind of jobs and I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.

Simpler jobs can be automized, which would improve everyone's lives really. More research can be done into it, more money can be invested. I think a universal basic income can help start that process, at very least. That along with making education more accessible to people.

so let me understand this. you get to give people so much money as a stipend for living. they have to do nothing for this money. if they want more they can go to work and make more money. sounds like something lbj tried. give people money to raise them out of their economic situation and they will get a job so they no longer need the handout. question. how's that working? when everybody gets back from oz the bills are real. the poverty is real. the fantasy is blinding. this was sent from my desktop

We had this thread back in April. Repeal Obamacare, Cut Social Security, Medicare/caid, Food Stamps, Obamaphones, All That BS

Without thinking too hard about it, I figure one of the gigantic benefits of UBI would be that children would have a parent at home.


Think about a poor single mom (or dad, of course) right now. To provide for her kids, she probably needs to work multiple jobs, so she's basically never home to take care of them, help them with their school work, be there for them emotionally, etc. When she is home, she's stressed and sleeping.


With UBI, even if she still has to work (which she probably would), she can work one job, perhaps doing something more rewarding. She can have better hours. Her kids can have more parental support at home, which will benefit them emotionally, academically, and help keep them out of trouble.


The long-term benefit of just this basic scenario is tremendous.

What's all of that? Who's going to do 'adjusting' based on the 'state of the country?' No one on a basic income is going to be able to live in San Fransisco. A modest amount will drive people that can't find jobs into the countryside where everything is cheaper and they'll share housing to cut costs further. Demand will drop as purchasing power drops and it's all going to be a disaster.

Cmon. Think before you write. Even if post 3 didn't address this it wouldn't matter. Your other objections might be valid. But even the world's dumbest person wouldn't change his vote about giving away three trillion a year to prevent 1000 billionaires getting ten million total.