Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Conservatives support UBI under one very big condition - using it to replace all welfare and government subsidies. That is, no more section 8 vouchers, no more food stamps, no more medicaid - everyone gets a check and spends it as needed.
In the Ontario example, they are starting this with a pilot study by randomly selecting households making less than $48,000 CAD a year to take part, and then studying the results and impacts on the economic welfare and general well-being of the impacted households. A single person is eligible to receive up to $17,000 CAD per year, while a couple $24,000 CAD per year, in addition to their conventional forms of income. Disabled persons are eligible for an additional $6,000 per year.
Personally, I'd rather wait and see the results and impacts of this pilot, rather than make preconceived judgments on the outcomes when there is limited data to evaluate the pros and cons.
The phrase I highlighted is key here. This pilot study is really not the same thing as UBI. The pilot study is really just another welfare program. The results of this study do not really reflect what would happen were UBI to be implemented. I have no doubt that selectively increasing the income of some small subset of needy people will increase the standard of living of those people. That's not the same thing as stating that increasing the income of EVERYONE will raise everyone's standard of living, though.
The phrase I highlighted is key here. This pilot study is really not the same thing as UBI. The pilot study is really just another welfare program. The results of this study do not really reflect what would happen were UBI to be implemented. I have no doubt that selectively increasing the income of some small subset of needy people will increase the standard of living of those people. That's not the same thing as stating that increasing the income of EVERYONE will raise everyone's standard of living, though.
I believe the pilot in Ontario is called "Basic Income Pilot" - not exactly universal income. I also have mixed feelings about giving a "universal income" for everyone from every income bracket. I'm not sure how much utility there is to give $1000 a month to someone already making $200,000 a year - the effort to collect the $1000 check not to mention the hassle of reporting it your tax return is probably not worth the trouble for those in the top income brackets. Yes the ultra-rich could technically "donate" that $1,000 to charities. However, I somehow doubt that giving $1,000 (pre-tax) income every month to someone already making $20,000/month is going to incentivize them to becoming more philanthropic.
With that said, I definitely think that any form of universal income or basic income initiative is worth studying on a limited scale, not just the impact on one's economic well-being but also how it impacts people's social behavior.
It will have a corrosive effect on society. Guarantee people a basic income, and plenty just won't work at all.
Hey, people doing their level best working and raising a family? Count me in in terms of government funded healthcare, job training, etc. But I do not support paying taxes to simply have people sponge off me. I'll move before that happens.
In the Ontario example, they are starting this with a pilot study by randomly selecting households making less than $48,000 CAD a year to take part, and then studying the results and impacts on the economic welfare and general well-being of the impacted households. A single person is eligible to receive up to $17,000 CAD per year, while a couple $24,000 CAD per year, in addition to their conventional forms of income. Disabled persons are eligible for an additional $6,000 per year.
Personally, I'd rather wait and see the results and impacts of this pilot, rather than make preconceived judgments on the outcomes when there is limited data to evaluate the pros and cons.
On a small scale, it will be amazing for those families. You won't get all the negative things that go along with it. You can't test something like that on a small scale?
That's a very poor understanding of the homeless, most of which are mentally disturbed or substance abusers
I do not think most homeless people are mentally ill or addicts, a high percentage of them are children, many of them even have jobs.
With that being said, I said "in theory."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.