Universal Basic Income

[d00mGuArD]

Typically the bolded is true. Everyone gets X amount of money. Then taxes work as normal.

You can adjust your tax rates as needed to cover the costs. Just subtract the savings from the removal of redundant programs and services such as welfare, unemployment, food stamps, reduced health care burden, etc.

I really don't understand why people thing everyone is all of a sudden going to slack off because they now have UBI. It's not like you would be making a six figure UBI. Your basics are covered. You still need to work if you want to travel, have disposable income, or enjoy the standard of living you have now if you're making median income or higher.

Maybe it's just my circle, but I don't know anyone who doesn't want to work. They may not want to work their job their doing right now, but want something. Having a UBI allows a person to pick a job they want, instead of one that they need. Anyone who is truly a slacker is likely not an all-star productive worker as it is right now.

As pointed out by Endus several times, persons financial value to a society is not only what they bring in for income tax, but also what they spend into society. You could have someone on welfare and someone with a 6 figure income have a similar financial value.

Sorry my english was not very good. My point on bold was to point out that the only people that will benefit from UBI are those that work
The slackers already have X (in the form of welfare etc which will just be renamed to UBI)

My second concern is this:
I have some friends working in the food service. Basically they say that they get crap salaries because their bosses know they will make money from tips. And it it wasn't for tips, they would get different salaries
Wouldn't employers start giving worse salaries, knowing you also get paid X by UBI?

[Deleted]

Was reading about Finland's experiment with basic income, they've called it a disaster, people stopped looking for work altogether.

Well, apparently you've been reading complete bullshit, then. First thing you should understand, which I'm sure you haven't been clued in on, is that Finland has been giving "free money" to people for a long time now; in fact, the people who are now participating in this "experiment" are actually getting less "free money" from the government than they used to, because our unemployment benefits and welfare have always been higher than what they're getting now. I bet whatever bullshit source you read didn't mention that, now did it?

Secondly, the people who are getting this "free money" in this "experiment" will still get welfare on top of it, if they actively seek employment. If they "stop looking for work altogether", they'll only get the ridiculously low amount of money that they're being given "for free", as so many put it.

Then, I would suggest you learn Finnish, and read the proper Finnish news outlets, or, better yet, talk to Finnish people who are living off of unemployment benefits and welfare, and know exactly what those amounts are. I've been there. Ask me. I can give you actual facts about this situation, instead of some foreign blogger who doesn't know shit about shit.

[Krastyn]

Sorry my english was not very good. My point on bold was to point out that the only people that will benefit from UBI are those that work
The slackers already have X (in the form of welfare etc which will just be renamed to UBI)

My second concern is this:
I have some friends working in the food service. Basically they say that they get crap salaries because their bosses know they will make money from tips. And it it wasn't for tips, they would get different salaries
Wouldn't employers start giving worse salaries, knowing you also get paid X by UBI?

For someone already on welfare there would likely be little difference. However as far as the government is concerned there is still a cost savings. You don't need a welfare department or other side agencies (food stamps, unemployment, etc). You don't need a case worker to evaluate the person to see if they quality. You don't need to regularly check on them to see if they're trying to find work. It's just a simple automation.

For existing employers sure, there will be some shifting in wages. It will likely go both ways though. As much as people like to complain, it is still a supply and demand issue. Yes employers can try to pay less, but will people still actually take the job? Right now if they did that tomorrow, you would have to figure out if you could live on that new wage, whether you would be approved for welfare, and a host of other decisions. If you have a guaranteed safety net then you are a lot more empowered.

If you're an employer in a less than desirable area, say a garbage man, do you really think they would be able to cut their workers wages a bunch if a young guy could just not work there, and instead go work at a comic books store for minimum wage and only take a 5-10% pay cut? If you ask some of the posters on this forum who think UBI will just lead to people just not working anymore and freeloading, who is going to take those positions? Part of it will be automation. Part of it will be people working less, and that isn't a bad thing.

[Theinquisition]

So what would freeloaders do with UBI, that they currently can't do now?

Well, i'll use my brother in law as a isolated example of what I'd expect to see with a UBI.

So, lets take food stamps, he has 6 kids and makes a whopping 12 an hour, so he gets something along the lines of 800 a month in food stamps. It's pre loaded on a card, so they get some food, but more often than not they sell those food stamp benefits at a 2/1 ratio. They then spend the money on gaudy clothing and various other non necessary commodities.

Every cent they get goes into everything *but* bills. My wifes mother died this past july, she was a very poor woman and had nothing in the way of a life insurance policy or any other money that could be used to pay for her final expenses. Now of my wifes 3 siblings we were the only ones with any kind of money, so we paid for the cremation. Over the next 3 months 2 siblings paid their share, the other brother, despite getting a insurance company settlement for a car accident in excess of 10k, spent the money on new guns. When confronted about the cremation costs he had excuses on why he shouldn't have to pay.

Anyway, point of the story, is that he doesn't prioritize anything, they buy dumb shit instead of paying rent, or even buying enough food for his kids, the only saving grace they have is that some of their benefits are only able to be used on paying for some necessities.

Now if they got a UBI instead of dedicated benefits, I have no doubt that they would be used to pay for everything but what they need. Once they run out of money, they would be at the benefits center complaining that they have nothing.

I imagine with a UBI, there would be massive abuse on a much larger scale. Many poor people are poor not only because of bad circumstance, but also horrible decision making.

[bakntyme]

Well, i'll use my brother in law as a isolated example of what I'd expect to see with a UBI.

So, lets take food stamps, he has 6 kids and makes a whopping 12 an hour, so he gets something along the lines of 800 a month in food stamps. It's pre loaded on a card, so they get some food, but more often than not they sell those food stamp benefits at a 2/1 ratio. They then spend the money on gaudy clothing and various other non necessary commodities.
...

Your brother-in-law is a criminal. Maybe you should turn him in for illegally selling his benefits. Maybe you should also not project his criminality to everyone else.

[I Push Buttons]

Well, i'll use my brother in law as a isolated example of what I'd expect to see with a UBI.

So, lets take food stamps, he has 6 kids and makes a whopping 12 an hour, so he gets something along the lines of 800 a month in food stamps. It's pre loaded on a card, so they get some food, but more often than not they sell those food stamp benefits at a 2/1 ratio. They then spend the money on gaudy clothing and various other non necessary commodities.

Every cent they get goes into everything *but* bills. My wifes mother died this past july, she was a very poor woman and had nothing in the way of a life insurance policy or any other money that could be used to pay for her final expenses. Now of my wifes 3 siblings we were the only ones with any kind of money, so we paid for the cremation. Over the next 3 months 2 siblings paid their share, the other brother, despite getting a insurance company settlement for a car accident in excess of 10k, spent the money on new guns. When confronted about the cremation costs he had excuses on why he shouldn't have to pay.

Anyway, point of the story, is that he doesn't prioritize anything, they buy dumb shit instead of paying rent, or even buying enough food for his kids, the only saving grace they have is that some of their benefits are only able to be used on paying for some necessities.

Now if they got a UBI instead of dedicated benefits, I have no doubt that they would be used to pay for everything but what they need. Once they run out of money, they would be at the benefits center complaining that they have nothing.

I imagine with a UBI, there would be massive abuse on a much larger scale. Many poor people are poor not only because of bad circumstance, but also horrible decision making.

Yes and as the video in the OP and many other studies point out, our current welfare model encourages that kind of behavior.

It encourages you to squeeze every little bit out of welfare and do nothing to improve your lot in life, because improving your lot in life even slightly means they take most if not all of that welfare away from you, leaving you worse off than if you just kept leeching and did nothing else.

In an ideal UBI system, if your brother in law did indeed squander his UBI; there would be a much more stringent safety net. A heavy handed government safety net, where you can only live in this particular place, you can only get this particular kind of food, etc. "We will pay for these things in particular and nothing else allowing you to subsist." I'd be in favor of the state taking people's kids away if they sink that low as well.

There is no abuse with a UBI as it is just free money to be spent on whatever you want. Unless you think the pretty bad existence he would be forced into (IE: communal housing in an apartment the size of a closet, the government mandating which food he can by, etc...) to be abuse?

[Theinquisition]

Yes and as the video in the OP and many other studies point out, our current welfare model encourages that kind of behavior.

It encourages you to squeeze every little bit out of welfare and do nothing to improve your lot in life, because improving your lot in life even slightly means they take most if not all of that welfare away from you, leaving you worse off than if you just kept leeching and did nothing else.

In an ideal UBI system, if your brother in law did indeed squander his UBI; there would be a much more stringent safety net. A heavy handed government safety net, where you can only live in this particular place, you can only get this particular kind of food, etc. "We will pay for these things in particular and nothing else allowing you to subsist." I'd be in favor of the state taking people's kids away if they sink that low as well.

There is no abuse with a UBI as it is just free money to be spent on whatever you want. Unless you think the pretty bad existence he would be forced into (IE: communal housing in an apartment the size of a closet, the government mandating which food he can by, etc...) to be abuse?

Problem is that those softies on the left would never allow more heavy handed distribution of funds, or limitations, hell they get pissy with the proposals for drug testing, or producing ID's to get benefits.

[Krastyn]

Anyway, point of the story, is that he doesn't prioritize anything, they buy dumb shit instead of paying rent, or even buying enough food for his kids, the only saving grace they have is that some of their benefits are only able to be used on paying for some necessities.

Now if they got a UBI instead of dedicated benefits, I have no doubt that they would be used to pay for everything but what they need. Once they run out of money, they would be at the benefits center complaining that they have nothing.

I imagine with a UBI, there would be massive abuse on a much larger scale. Many poor people are poor not only because of bad circumstance, but also horrible decision making.

So nothing changes under UBI. There is not other benefits center to go to. Lazy people are going to be lazy people under both systems, but they aren't the majority of people. Until people are educated better, there will be people making poor financial choices (on this point though, a side benefit of UBI would improve this).

You can't "abuse" the system. You get what you get. If you want more, you work.

[Theinquisition]

So nothing changes under UBI. There is not other benefits center to go to. Lazy people are going to be lazy people under both systems, but they aren't the majority of people. Until people are educated better, there will be people making poor financial choices (on this point though, a side benefit of UBI would improve this).

You can't "abuse" the system. You get what you get. If you want more, you work.

If it actually worked like that I might support it, but it doesn't.

Do you really think that the government is just going to let families go homeless and starve to death because they are shitty with money? Should they, especially when it's children that would suffer from their parents stupidity?

No.

They would spend it on tattoos, booze and drugs, and whine that they can't feed their families. The government would then step in and help more.

[I Push Buttons]

Problem is that those softies on the left would never allow more heavy handed distribution of funds, or limitations, hell they get pissy with the proposals for drug testing, or producing ID's to get benefits.

Yes because in the current system, a lot of people at the bottom aren't there by their own doing... If you are old/disabled and unable to work, born in poverty, living in a shit area with terrible schools, etc... MOST people on welfare fall into those categories... Abuse, while rampant, is a small portion... So you would be punishing people (through heavy oversight/restriction of freedom) genuinely in need, largely, if not entirely due to no fault of their own, because of the actions of others.

Under a UBI, everyone would be given the means to provide for themselves with that UBI... They might only be able to afford a crappy apartment, cheap food, etc... But the UBI would give them the freedom to make their own choices regarding those things.

The people using the safety net under a UBI would be people who squandered their UBI, people who didn't take what they were given and use it wisely, people who have demonstrated through their squandering of their UBI that they NEED that oversight/heavy handedness because they can't be counted on to do it themselves.

[cubby]

Why should you get paid to just exist? Want more money? Make yourself more valuable to society. Pickup some skills. Make good financial choices.

I'm not sure you understand even the basic idea of UBI. But it's adorable that you continue to post on things you're genuinely clueless about. Fun!

[Youn]

I can tell you right now, if it was 1,000.00 a month per person. I am pretty sure my wife and myself would move to the mountains and live out there. As it is right now, I only work because it's required.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I support this despite some of the others advocating for it or their reasons, if crime could be near zero, homelessness and unemployment as well, I am very much ok with basic standard living.

No everyone shouldn't get a pony but nobody should ever go homeless or hungry, FFS we don't even let death row inmates suffer that.

[Theinquisition]

I support this despite some of the others advocating for it or their reasons, if crime could be near zero, homelessness and unemployment as well, I am very much ok with basic standard living.

No everyone shouldn't get a pony but nobody should ever go homeless or hungry, FFS we don't even let death row inmates suffer that.

what about the folks who spend the money on drugs and booze instead of food and rent, are we gonna give them more to make sure they don't starve or go homeless?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Problem is that those softies on the left would never allow more heavy handed distribution of funds, or limitations, hell they get pissy with the proposals for drug testing, or producing ID's to get benefits.

Here is the thing if you are dieing from lack of water despite how I feel about your getting water yourself, or what you did to hydrates yourself to begin with it doesn't matter, I am still going to get you water.

You need water to survive, do you understand that?

I mean shit maybe you are selling the fucking water who knows after I bring you some.

[Krastyn]

Do you really think that the government is just going to let families go homeless and starve to death because they are shitty with money? Should they, especially when it's children that would suffer from their parents stupidity?

They would spend it on tattoos, booze and drugs, and whine that they can't feed their families. The government would then step in and help more.

All of which happens now. Some people are malnourished. Some people are homeless. Some people are bad with money.

Maybe instead of having two parents work 4 jobs to get by and have no family time their kids will be raised better. Maybe absolutely nothing will change but people will be overall happier (as shown in the Mincome study).

Maybe part of the problem is that the education system does an absolute shit job of teaching finance to people.

You're trying to argue things will be worse, with nothing to back it. Your argument seems to be that the majority of people are inherently lazy and will do as little as possible to exist.

[Doctor Amadeus]

what about the folks who spend the money on drugs and booze instead of food and rent, are we gonna give them more to make sure they don't starve or go homeless?

You don't have to give them more, just don't cut their legs from under them, fix what is broken don't punish the vast majority who can't figure it out.

Yeah and you are correct, I agree with you on the waste and lack of oversight, I don't agree with you on what level of a problem this is, or that the way to fix this is to make people suffer.

You are a worker Tony a go getter, I get that, but whether it is your brother you mentioned or one of my deadbeat relatives as well, it isn't about who's fault it is they are in that circumstance.

I totally get where you are coming from TRUST ME I DO! But what I am trying to say is YOU KNOW BETTER, I KNOW BETTER, and these people despite themselves need help, some don't know, or some YES choose to be stupid, although not the majority.

The truth is nobody is perfect we all have our blind spots and people should be made to own their shit, but what about the price we have to pay?


I don't like seeing people feeling as though they need to hold to sign to eat or make a living, i don't think a person should be required to do whatever I think they should in order to live considering that unlike in the past you can't really go Grizzly Adams it.

It isn't about like or dislike or our indifferences, it is about problem solving and coming up with solutions and putting aside emotions regardless to which way you look at this.

Want less homeless make a way for a person working to afford housing.

Want less Crime, provide access and realistic paths towards education and jobs so crime is less appealing.

But yes I agree sometimes you have to smack the needle out of a drug addicts hand, sometimes you do have to shut off the tap and stop enabling if resources aren't going towards the right places.

And if we can agree on nothing else, I can agree with that, but I won't support ineffective which hunts like drug testing. No reason we can't hire people like veterans to work in places of need who can help with monitoring and managing of resources.

[Logwyn]

Well, i'll use my brother in law as a isolated example of what I'd expect to see with a UBI.

So, lets take food stamps, he has 6 kids and makes a whopping 12 an hour, so he gets something along the lines of 800 a month in food stamps. It's pre loaded on a card, so they get some food, but more often than not they sell those food stamp benefits at a 2/1 ratio. They then spend the money on gaudy clothing and various other non necessary commodities.

Isn't selling food stamps fraud and illegal?

[cubby]

Problem is that those softies on the left would never allow more heavy handed distribution of funds, or limitations, hell they get pissy with the proposals for drug testing, or producing ID's to get benefits.

But you're now combining anedoctal evidence with future assumptions based on personal prejudices. I'm fine with your brother as an example, but it's certainly not the case of everyone, even you would admit that. And now you're claiming softies on the left will fuck it up. Fine - I disagree, but that's beside the point.

UBI isn't welfare. Categorizing it as such detracts from the bigger picture. In the relative near future, UBI will happen - and when it does it will be taken advantage of, just like in every large program implementation there are evil doers.

But all of this doesn't address the usefulness of being able to provide a majority of a population with basic needs - food, housing, clothing, power. That's the final goal.

[Theinquisition]

All of which happens now. Some people are malnourished. Some people are homeless. Some people are bad with money.

Maybe instead of having two parents work 4 jobs to get by and have no family time their kids will be raised better. Maybe absolutely nothing will change but people will be overall happier (as shown in the Mincome study).

Maybe part of the problem is that the education system does an absolute shit job of teaching finance to people.

You're trying to argue things will be worse, with nothing to back it. Your argument seems to be that the majority of people are inherently lazy and will do as little as possible to exist.

I'm not saying all people are inherently lazy, in fact I'd say most people find themselves happier when they are working, most of the unemployed people ive met, especially men, are very depressed.

What im saying is that many poor people, are horrible with money. Some have drug problems, alcohol problems, or are just immature and spend money on dumb shit. Not only would a UBI enable shitty behaviors further, but end up costing the state even more.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't selling food stamps fraud and illegal?

Yeah, people still do it.

- - - Updated - - -

But you're now combining anedoctal evidence with future assumptions based on personal prejudices. I'm fine with your brother as an example, but it's certainly not the case of everyone, even you would admit that. And now you're claiming softies on the left will fuck it up. Fine - I disagree, but that's beside the point.

UBI isn't welfare. Categorizing it as such detracts from the bigger picture. In the relative near future, UBI will happen - and when it does it will be taken advantage of, just like in every large program implementation there are evil doers.

But all of this doesn't address the usefulness of being able to provide a majority of a population with basic needs - food, housing, clothing, power. That's the final goal.

From what I understand cubby, the UBI would take the place of Food stamps and the like. Now that's where I think it's a bad idea.