Critique of UBI

[martins name]

Able people should be looking for work, working or getting an education. There should be a social safety net that takes care of people who are looking for work and free college and some financial support for students. 
A UBI that is high enough for people to survive on creates another option: to work on passions that don't have value for others. If these passions would have value for others they would get paid for it and then UBI would be obsolete. The only difference between the welfare system I described and UBI is that UBI leaves room for useless passions. How many young guys' passion is gaming? 

It is so fundamental to being human to have the responsibility of surviving. People should get help doing so but removing an entire population from that responsibility will disconnect people from reality.

A low level of UBI like 100 - 300 dollars a month is another matter tho. As long as people can't entirely survive on it it could work. This would have to be tested on different populations. 

There have been trials of UBI that have seemed to work but the results are misleading. The recipients of the trials knew that the trial has an end thus had to remain grounded in survival. They used the resources afforded to them to set themselves up to survive better after the UBI period. If they knew they would never need to worry about survival again it would change their whole approach to life in a way that was not shown in the trials.

A better example of how UBI would work is in lottery winners. I doubt they become more productive and helpful to their fellow citizens after they win.

There is currently no society that is conscious enough to not be derailed by a UBI. But if there was, a UBI would not be needed.

[Bobby_2021]

The main risk of UBI is not people not being productive enough.

The productive people who receive UBI will put enough value into the economy far more than few people who are going to be unproductive. So it will be a net productivity gain for society. 

The problem is not with the funding either.

The real problem is the systemic issues plaguing society. You cannot throw money at them and expect all to go well.

For example if everyone is getting UBI then the rent will also be higher. So the UBI will go to the landlord's pocket. So you have to solve the housing crisis first to not let the UBI money go to waste. Also the homeless people would rather spend it on drugs since they don't have anything better to do. 

Likewise the inflation might also be higher. This is especially the case for demand driven inflation. Capitalists will simply ask for more for products and services since they know that people have an extra disposable income they can use. 

So I say we should fix these basic issues first before jumping on to UBI. 

We should experiment this starting from the bottom section of the society. If it's not done strategically it will miserably fail. 

Edited March 14 by Bobby_2021

[DocWatts]

Like a lot of policies, there are better and worse implementations of UBI. A good implementation would give people enough to cover (or put a serious dent in) their basic needs.

The idea that a significant number of people would drop out of the workforce if they had enough to cover their subsistence needs is a bit ridiculous, and is born of classist assumptions imho (no one is going to be living like a king if they're getting $10k a year in UBI payments in the United States, for instance).  Of course, a workable implementation of UBI would need to be paired with things like rent controls (where increases in rent are capped at national productivity gains or to inflation), so that UBI money isn't being extracted into the pockets of landlords.

What this implementation of UBI would give people is less financial desperation, more leverage to bargain with employers and move jobs, and more opportunities for entrepreneurship. So no surprise that the ruling class tends to vilify UBI 

Edited March 14 by DocWatts

[Bobby_2021]

People need a shelter to live. That needs to be guaranteed somehow or at least made available at affordable rates. 

Until then all talk of UBI is frivolous.

[bebotalk]

There already is a welfare state. Would the UBI replace this? Would existing benefits eat out of the UBI total? Would rich people get it? yes, they're citizens too, But they clearly don't need it as much.

Would it raise overall taxation? If a person chooses not to work, this means a weaker economy. Well, certainly if many choose to do this. Why then should the masses subsidise their lifestyles to do nothing and "live for their passions"? 

It's a nice idea, but the details haven't been fully thought out iimho. 

 

[bebotalk]

4 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Like a lot of policies, there are better and worse implementations of UBI. A good implementation would give people enough to cover (or put a serious dent in) their basic needs.

The idea that a significant number of people would drop out of the workforce if they had enough to cover their subsistence needs is a bit ridiculous, and is born of classist assumptions imho (no one is going to be living like a king if they're getting $10k a year in UBI payments in the United States, for instance).  Of course, a workable implementation of UBI would need to be paired with things like rent controls (where increases in rent are capped at national productivity gains or to inflation), so that UBI money isn't being extracted into the pockets of landlords.

What this implementation of UBI would give people is less financial desperation, more leverage to bargain with employers and move jobs, and more opportunities for entrepreneurship. So no surprise that the ruling class tends to vilify UBI 

There are already avenues for entrepreneurship. Many countries offer grants or low cost loans for this. The USA at least has a pretty thin welfare state. If anything, it would work there more than anything else. 

[bebotalk]

As a rule of fiscal policy, any spending must be accounted for by taxation or borrowing.

Say everybody in the USA got $17k a year from the federal government. How is this costed? Would it mean more personal taxation? But then this would erode the UBI benefit. Is it higher business taxes? What if corporate interests whine? What if businesses leave to go elsewhere as it would make the US less competitive? The national debt is already high. So if it's funded by borrowing, what then? More national debt, which isn't good. 17k for 300m people is a LOT of money. Would it come from the defence budget? Some argue it should. But it won't. The USA's position as a superpower and in a new Cold War with Russia means that cutting defence spending is imprudent right now. 

UBI would have more traction if it had a sound macroeconomic or fiscal basis. It seems at this point it's just people saying it can help the poor without seeing the fine details.  It's said by idealistic uber-liberals without realising the mechanics of it. 

There is less need for a UBI in European countries that have solid welfare states. 

 

Edited March 14 by bebotalk

[Bobby_2021]

14 hours ago, bebotalk said:

Would it mean more personal taxation?

Nope. Not necessarily.

They can just print money and put it in your account. Or just increase the number on your bank account electronically. They are just numbers on a screen.

You can choose to increase the tax rates although that has nothing to do with UBI. 

[bebotalk]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Nope. Not necessarily.

They can just print money and put it in your account. Or just increase the number on your bank account electronically. They are just numbers on a screen.

You can choose to increase the tax rates although that has nothing to do with UBI. 

printing money has the potential to increase inflation. even if money isn't physical or tangible, it still has to be accounted for. 

[bliss54]

I'll work a few hours a day for my survival, sure. But not this BS 8 hours a day slavery system

With technological advancements, there is no need at all we need to be working this much

On 14/03/2024 at 7:58 AM, martins name said:

A UBI that is high enough for people to survive on creates another option: to work on passions that don't have value for others. If these passions would have value for others they would get paid for it and then UBI would be obsolete. The only difference between the welfare system I described and UBI is that UBI leaves room for useless passions. How many young guys' passion is gaming? 
 

Yes some people would just sit at home playing games, but that gets boring after a while. You'd be suprised by the number of people who would still contribute postively 

[martins name]

@bliss54 If this contribution is valuable to others they would get payed and the UBI wouldn't be needed. The only real difference is UBI allows people to not be valuable to others.

[bebotalk]

On 23/03/2024 at 10:30 AM, bliss54 said:

I'll work a few hours a day for my survival, sure. But not this BS 8 hours a day slavery system

With technological advancements, there is no need at all we need to be working this much

Yes some people would just sit at home playing games, but that gets boring after a while. You'd be suprised by the number of people who would still contribute postively 

We're nowhere near going from the need to work, at least technologically.