UBI needs to be combined with rent and price controls if it is not, inflation will eat the benefits inside of a 5-year period and money will be siphoned up the chain.
Otherwise I am all for it.
Yeah I talked about that a bit in a previous comment.
Oop I read through the top comments and probably missed it! ^^
I disagree, rent and price controls are not the correct tool.
Land value taxes are the correct method to solve that issue.
I don’t entirely follow? I’m totally open to alternatives to making sure the money stays where it is, I just don’t immediately understand the mechanism.
A proper Land value tax is a way of preventing owners from making any money off the appreciation of the value of land while still being profitable to construct or renovate if it adds value. It significantly reduces if not outright eliminates housing as an investment.
Land value taxes only apply to the value of the land itself, not the buildings, and therefore desirable areas with high land value taxes have a significant incentive to sell and be redeveloped with density which spread a that tax among a larger number of tenants.
The biggest downside is that it completely destroys existing equity. Which is both how it makes everything affordable again, and is also likely why it won’t pass as a policy for many years.
I genuinely like the idea of higher density, as much as I like driving, having a city that’s walkable and with good transit (which density incentives) would be a dream.
My current city is a sprawling suburb and it’s almost an hour by bus to do a trip that takes 10 minutes by car.
Also thank you for expanding on this!
Should be done everywhere and for everyone. Can you imagine a society where you don’t have to work just to be able to live? The projects you would pursue, how way less power would bad managers and bosses have? It would also help decentralization from big cities as people wouldn’t be forced to move there to get jobs.
Also I never realized the toll finances were taking on my stress and mental health until I reached some kind of financial stability. No one should have to endure that much stress just to be able to live.
Sounds ideal
except politicians need low wage workers they can grift off with culture wars, and CANNON FODDER for the military, they would never agree with that, thats why most countries dont want implement it.
I could imagine that society being full of all sorts of different problems than the current one.
For example if people moved away from cities it would be a huge negative impact on the environment.
You would also have a new underclass that simple lived off assistance and refused to work. The costs of living would probably also skyrocket such that whatever basic level of income you set would be the new poverty line.
The problem with assumption is that UBI must only do good. It won’t. It will have all sorts of negative effects on top of the positive ones. An easy one to foresee is people taking their UBI and gambling it away.
The vast majority of people couldn’t just live off basic income. Maybe a single person, no kids, no drinking, no house, no car, and living very frugality might be able to not work.
deleted by creator
More than not having to work is not risking to lose where you live and being hungry.
Yeah I’m interested in exploring that
I mean, there are plenty of sci-fi concepts where there is widespread UBI, and what it means is you have large portions of the population unemployed and permanent on assistance and employment is only for the social elites.
Which is to say when you raise the floor, you also raise the ceiling.
UBI that has been used IRL is often highly targeted to select population groups (like single parents, or in a single municipality). It’s never been widespread.
and of course any wide spread UBI, would be a quick reason for landlords, food companies, etc, to simple raise prices and pocket it, thus defeating the purpose entirely.
Easy fix: public housing only for rental and public supermarkets.
Yeah I think to your final point, some type of price increase regulations would have to come out parallel. Not sure how that would work but interested in learning.
Yes, I support it. Science has shown the government can afford it and it will save them money in the long run. If society has the resources to ensure everyone’s basic needs are met, do it.
The argument against it is that people won’t work if they aren’t forced to. I think people want to work. This would enable people to have their basic needs met first so they can build a career comfortably.
I believe it should happen and I believe it eventually will happen in Canada, but it will take a lot longer than it should.
I’d add that, when you look through history… Every major scientific advancement has been made by people not worried about paying for their daily life.
They had time to think about hard problems
im FOR IT
Same
I support it and think it could work. It would make people more happy and free, while removing a lot of unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy from our current welfare system.
Id agree, especially with the growing use of AI. I don’t think anyone knows fully how many jobs will disappear but we do know it wont/isnt zero.
Yes. When 10 people control more wealth than the rest of us combined while families working 60+ hours a week cant put food on the table. Then yes, the system is rigged against the middle class and we deserve a fighting chance
The top 10 wealthiest people in the world only have a fortune of around 1.8 Trillion dollars.
The estimated global personal wealth for everyone in the world is around 450 Trillion dollars.
The top 10% of the world controls a massively disproportionate amount of wealth, but definitely not the top 10 people/families.
I agree we need a universal basic income, I refer to it as “automation compensation”. It only works if corporations and investors are banned from owning residential homes. Also we need to construct an abundance of efficient high rises to ensure there’s more than enough availability. In order for basic necessities like housing, electricity, water, and food are met, we need the infrastructure plan to guarantee availability. Otherwise, a UBI will just drive up costs because owners and sellers will account for that extra money people can spend.
Messaging is so important these days. “Blue collar dollars”
The words “universal” and “income” are so charged now. A lot of people dismiss it immediately as “unearned”.
Thats why I think just doing universal health care, universal internet, universal electricity would be an ideal way to transition imho. Just start by providing the basics. We’ve invested so much in energy in this country in the last 2 centuries and we all get exploited on it. doesn’t have to be a blank check form.
Only works if we limit the amount of wealth single persons are allowed to hoard.
I say that anyone with a networth over 10M should have all other income over that taxed 100%
Same for companies, cap them at 1 billion
This will allow capitalism yet spread the wealth
Yes, this requires more details, of course, but this should be a basic rule. There is no right to own more than 10 million in wealth
I generally agree, but rather than making it a specific number, I think we should tie it to some multiple of the poverty line or the average income of the lowest 10% or something like that. That way, if the rich want to earn more, they have to make things materially better for the poorest people in society; and if they don’t do enough, the government takes that money to do it for them.
The wealth cap should be tied to a multiple of the UBI. A person or corporation wants to be allowed to get even richer? Then they can campaign to raise the UBI amount for everyone.
If, as they claim there’s enough left to go around and they are paying enough taxes, then it’ll be simple to raise the UBI amount.
Also to environment too. But first we should strip out power from politicians, current system wont work
We should not have UBI as that implicitly continues the need for money. Instead we should work towards a world with Universal Basic Resources, or even not so basic resources, if it can be automated.
Currency isn’t the problem, and you really need to keep that concept separate from the issues that happen within Capitalism.
Currency is just a convenient method to measure and exchange resources.
Very few people desire an allocated home and weekly rations of flour, chicken, and butter. If you instead give them a list of things they can choose from, and assign ratios and a limit for total resources, all you’ve done is create a new currency.
Currency is prone to inflation. See other posts here about that.
That’s where I am too.
deleted by creator
The study results look really promising. I think it would be an amazing thing for society as a whole. I just also think it won’t happen because (some) humans get really bent out of shape when they think others are suffering less than they think they should be suffering.
Progressive taxation rate that can go negative (aka people can receive money) is more fair.
Could even be easier to implement because it is not only a “social” benefit that cost tax payers money. That could help convince some people.
That has problems too ….
- Do you need to work to get your income, because how else you filing income tax
- income taxes are once per year: what if you have financial disaster after April 15?
- there’s a needy segment of the population where filing tax forms is unlikely or impossible.
Yes, but it needs to be paired with an aggressive ban on any form of rent-seeking.
I strongly think we should have it. The money isn’t trickling down, so we need to forcibly re-distribute it.
I think it’s a great idea.
We are the wealthiest culture ever, we can afford it.
It would zero out most crime.
Fighting to survive is beneath us.
I don’t know if you really know how much money that represents. Would you still work? If not, who will make your food, everything you buy, and why?
I coincidentally heard something about that today. Sadly in German but according to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGE8jzGZ7To
80% of people said they would continue working
80% of people thought others would not
We seem to expect worse of others than of ourselves. Even if it turns out to be that 40% ends up stopping to do anything remotely useful, it’s at least worth trying and finding out what works and what doesn’t imo. Having the right to choose how to live your life freely seems like an enormous benefit that a minority needn’t ruin
I mean it’s pretty obvious that people don’t tend to stop working.
All you have to do is look at groups of people who either don’t need income. Take a look at retired people for example, and you see many of them doing something productive with at least part of their time.
They may choose to do things that aren’t a paid job, like childcare for grand children, taking care of a home, or volunteering, but those are still work in my opinion.
Hell my own grandmother retired from being a grocery cashier for 40 years, then got bored and went back to work for another 5 years because she liked being social (it was a smaller town where she knew most of the customers).
I think that focusing everything on UBI and dismantling all other forms of welfare are going to create massive inequalities in society that few people anticipate.
For instance, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are effectively UBI free zones in some major metros with decent economies.
“UBI Free” doesn’t make sense. Everyone gets a UNIVERSAL basic income.
If you mean there would be areas of major metros where people who are not employed cannot live, those already exist.
