Are you in support of UBI?

I don’t think that it’s a terribly interesting question as a yes-or-no question for all UBI policies.

The thing about UBI is that the devil is in the details: UBI covers a broad range of policies. You really need to know the specifics of a proposal to know what it entails; UBI policies may be very different.

For example, there are a number of left-wing groups who like the idea of UBI, because they see it as a way to redistribute wealth. Normally, they tend to want something like keeping spending policy more-or-less where it is, adding UBI, and increasing taxes on some groups that they’d like to shift wealth from.

There are also a number of small-government right-wing groups who like the idea of UBI, because they see it as a way to reduce the role of government in setting purchasing decisions. Normally, they tend to want something more like a revenue-neutral form of UBI; there, one does something like cutting spending policy (on various forms of subsidy, say, like for food or housing) by $N and then shifting that $N to UBI so people can choose how to spend it. Here’s a right-libertarian take on UBI:

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income

Of course, as with any policy proposal, the details matter a lot. And the Swiss proposal is problematic in a number of ways. For starters, 2,800 USD a month means that a married couple could get $67,200 per year for doing nothing. And while it’s true that Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of per capita income, that’s still an awful lot of money. Furthermore, the Swiss proposal seems to involve implementing a basic income in addition to their currently existing welfare system. Few libertarians would be willing to sign up for that deal. But as a replacement for traditional welfare programs, there is a lot for libertarians to like about a basic income.

So, okay, both our wealth-redistribution guys on the left and our small-government guys on the right are talking about UBI policies…but they are talking about policies with very different implications due to the specifics of the policy. The left-wing guy probably isn’t especially excited about the form of UBI that the right-wing guy wants, and the right-wing guy probably doesn’t like the form of UBI that the left-wing guy wants. So I’d really need to know the specifics of a given UBI policy before I could say whether I think it’s a good idea; I wouldn’t just be across-the-board in favor of or against any UBI implementation, but would need to see a specific UBI proposal and consider it individually.

I don’t like the idea of of subsidizing demand, but i’ll take anything at this point

Yes

Yes.

The whole competition for who has more money because that means they are more successful and thus far be superior over others is… Stupid

I feel like it’s less about whether the process will go up or if capitalism can survive with it. I in feel that it’s going to be necessary for humans to function. With population increasing, and jobs actually decreasing from technology for the first time in human history, from businesses automating stuff or self check out counters, we’re just not going to have a job for every single person out there.

Yes I’m in favor of UBI.

I think capitalism would survive just fine with UBI.

I don’t think prices would automatically cancel out the money, because prices are still subject to competition.

As for whether people would still work after their basic needs are met, obviously. The evidence is people who are beyond subsistence and still seeking more money.

I’ve wondered the same thing. Seems like it would need to be paired with price controls or public control of essentials, but that’s sort of a “seize the means of production” conversation that I don’t think would be popular unless something like AI genuinely puts enough people out of work.

My stance on this is that if a machine can do the work of a hundred men, then ninety-nine men should be able to retire early with pay. Anything else is theft.

So, yes, I support UBI, and no, I don’t think it would break capitalism. It’s the same amount of money being put into circulation, just for less work.

I heard an idea once about making minimum wage 0$ and giving everyone a liveabke UBI. That would mean that nobody is required to participate in the workforce, meaning that employers who can’t afford to pay their workers a good wage would be priced out of the market rather than being able to prey upon peoples need for, y’know, money (which can be exchanged for goods and services). A very appealing idea for a 16 year old boy, and the only issue I see with it now is extreme specialisation in the workforce leading to less competition between different workplaces for similar jobs.

I am a moderate supporter of UBI. Strongly support “negative income taxing” which is a bit more techy but essentially your income is topped up if it falls below a certain level as opposed to everyone getting a lump sum each month whether they need it or not.

Yes

Let’s see, lemmy, let’s see if we can find one upvoted opinion against UBI.

Ah, no, we’re an echo chamber. But then what’s the point of AskLemmy, if you already know that everyone thinks the exact same way you do?

Let’s see, lemmy, let’s see if we can find one upvoted opinion against UBI.

Ah, no, we’re an echo chamber. But then what’s the point of AskLemmy, if you already know that everyone thinks the exact same way you do?

I’m a fan of UB I+S. Universal basic income AND universal basic services. Plus hight taxes for the rich. And workplace democracy. And a massive shift of the economy to the nonprofit sector: if what your company is providing is a utility, you can’t have making a profit be your fiduciary responsibility.

Basically, fuck capitalism, I want socialism.

One method of structuring it is that if UBI is $20k/year, then you have $20k/year taken out as taxes as long as you have a job. The income is neutral, so there’s no basis for companies to raise prices.