The devil is in the details.

How much money do you give everyone? How do you determine that number?

How do you raise the money? Tax the rich is the obvious answer but they hold the political power and are unlikely to easily acquiesce to such a transfer of wealth.

Do you give everyone the same regardless of where they live? $X is worth more/less in different parts of the country.

What are the eligibility requirements? If people are upset about immigrants now, then how about when everyone is entitled to $X of "free" money?

give x dollars less y felonies.

You make thread after thread wherein you think that common sense will prevail only to be disappointed repeatedly. You can explain that 'it's only ten million' until you pass out and the public isn't going to go for it.

What is amusing about your exaggerated assertion is that it is aimed at liberals. Most of the time posters here say the same thing about Trumpkins. So I have to explain to both sides that their opponents are not as dumb as they think. Exactly the opposite of what I do on forums like Poker Theory.

She might even find time to pop out a few more babies. When each is guaranteed a stipend just for existing, why not? Sure their parents have proven themselves incapable of being independent and are likely to fail at raising their broodlings to be assets to society, but no biggie, rich people are like really really rich.

VAT

Well its still a 33% increase in disposable incomes, it will motivate some, others not so much.

However anyone working a full time job is likely to see their income go from 300$ a week to 700$.

There is a big, rarely mentioned bonus of UBI which is that there are some people who dont want to work and these are exactly the same people that most employers would rather not hire. Everyone wins if these people can enjoy their lives on the sofas.

The rest can get on with working for some more money or other interest.

If you're going to give almost all the wealth to the top 1% you have to at least throw some crumbs to the peons/population for basic survival while at the same time convincing them the real reward will be eternal salvation in heaven(with streets of gold and pearly gates). These poor rich people don't even get to go to heaven!

True. But there's more than one way to skin a cat. Instead of UBI, maybe pass a law making it illegal to charge people for stuff. Same effect.

A weighting depending on living costs in the immediate area. Same as currently happens with wages.

or people who don‘t want to supplement their UBI can move elsewhere

Answer is to pay women a UBI bonus for having abortions instead of births.

Right?

If I was given a UBI of $300/week the very next thing I would do is begin a lobbying group demanding $330 a week.

I would spend my now free time making flyers and pamphlets to hand out to my fellows collecting the entitlement pointing out to them that they are being cheated by the rich and the government who are giving out mere crumbs.

So why aren't you doing that now since you currently get a UBI of $0/week and are being cheated by the rich and government who are giving out nothing at all?

Rich people will be on board with paying for millions of little "non assets to society" when they realize the other option is desperate hordes with nothing to live for storming their mansions.

I'm gonna need at least $300/week to get my venture off the ground.

Perhaps I can start a GoFundMe page...

How much can I put you down for?

Therefore don't give people money or they'll demand more? (And demanding more is a bad thing?)

Wouldn't it be easier to get some menial 40 hr a week job then to mob the nearest mansion?

Just thinking about the organizational requirements of building a horde seems like a ton of work.

Does managing a horde pay well and have good benefits? Group health insurance? Two weeks a year vacation?

Does one get paid family leave from the horde?

Not if the menial job doesn't pay enough to support yourself and your family.

If the masses are starving and desperate they won't have the time to worry about the ton of work involved in taking food/shelter/money from the rich. Obviously if they had better options they wouldn't be in this situation. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

No Lappy, desperate mob uprisings don't have group health insurance.

Can someone change this guy's undertitle to 'let them eat cake', tyia.

I just don't think anyone in the US should be expected to live on $300/week for doing nothing.

Gotta be at least $330/wk.

Welfare actually does de-incentivize work in some instances. UBI would not becuase the more you work the more you earn, you don’t lose benefits by working.

Isn't that just terrific! Once the UBI arrives I can move back to NYC and live on the upper East Side, tyvm!

ideally the amount of the UBI would be the absolute poverty level for that household size. Not corrected for the place of living.

General taxation would fund that, but remember that it is supposed to come as a substitute to all other current cash transfers, or mean tested benefits, to the poors.

Eligibility would be linked to citizenship, in the countries where the constitution allows for that, or after x years of fiscal residence. One of the positive side effects of the UBI should be to improve perception of immigration: people coming into the country would literally be taxed for a benefit that only accrues to citizens (or long term residents), as a way to pay their way in, to justify the opportunities a country gives them to improve their life.

From the right, I think UBI has tremendous potential to fix many social problems and the fact that in Europe "the real left" tends to be against it reinforces my favourable opinion.

Real social-democrats are terrorized of the idea of dismantling many public agencies that currently provide plenty of public jobs for welfare burocrats, and that would happen with the introduction of an UBI that displaces all other forms of welfare.

They also fear they would lose votes when literally no1 with the right to vote needs financial help to survive anymore.