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.
For me, I dislike UBI because I feel that people should be self-sufficient.
I work so that I can put a roof over my head, food on my table and save something for when I am no longer able to work.
I don't want to be taxed on what I get paid for working to provide a "basic income" to someone who sits on their porch all day and watches everyone else work.
This says it all. It's disgusting that society has lowered itself to believe that people should be paid a basic income simply because they exist.
To me, UBI is the same as welfare for healthy, able bodied young men. That's a big turn-off.
Plus, if you hand out $1,000 every month (or name your own amount) then everything would get more expensive, plus you would have the added expense of administering the system.
The state of Alaska has something like UBI (fossil fuel royalty payments). Check out the prices of everyday goods up there some time.
Lolwut?
That's literally the entire point of UBI, There is not much 'administering' it as its UNIVERSAL.
Take for example the $1200 stimulus many received, It took several departments sifting/approving and administering just to get it to a handful of people; UBI cuts the need for any of that.
If UBI is welfare then so is Social Security, They're both being paid into.
We pay into UBI with our taxes/SS is paid via employment; Whats ironic is that UBI would benefit SSDI recipients the most as it would give them additional income.
Lastly $1k/mo isn't going to make anyone quit their jobs, The straw-man argument of someone being 'able-bodied' is ridiculous; Its assuming that people will refuse to work.
That's literally the entire point of UBI, There is not much 'administering' it as its UNIVERSAL.
Take for example the $1200 stimulus many received, It took several departments sifting/approving and administering just to get it to a handful of people; UBI cuts the need for any of that.
If UBI is welfare then so is Social Security, They're both being paid into.
We pay into UBI with our taxes/SS is paid via employment; Whats ironic is that UBI would benefit SSDI recipients the most as it would give them additional income.
Lastly $1k/mo isn't going to make anyone quit their jobs, The straw-man argument of someone being 'able-bodied' is ridiculous; Its assuming that people will refuse to work.
The bottom line is you have no right to get anyone’s money without asking them for it. You have no right to ANY income that you don’t earn. Get your hands out of the pockets of your fellow citizens. Earn your own money.
In a country as big as America there are bound to be successful people. Not just millions. Tens of millions. And? What? We aren't talking about the successful. We are talking about the 'doomed losers'. All over the world people are talking about America's doomed losers. It has been noticed that most are not on drugs, do not follow ghetto culture, do in fact have some education. Things that in any other 1st World Country would have set them up for life.
You're the numbers guy. You tell me that it is acceptable the number of Americans living below a Middle Class Standard. And, yes, go ahead and record for posterity an assertion that it is, in fact, their fault and theirs alone. Shark Tank, that's your metric for American Success?
I hate to be the one to break it to you but this American worship of individual entrepreneurship as a mark of distinction is actually regarded by every other country on earth as a mark of shame! The countries on earth with the highest expressions of individual entrepreneurship are hellholes. Desperation forces people to do, sell, con ... whatever they must, in order to survive. It is NOT something to be proud of.
America is done because her people never learned to pull together. Everyone wants to go their own way. My co-workers all spend all their free time hatching their break-out entrepreneur ideas that will enable them to no longer have to work for someone else. Again, you are the numbers guy, tell us what percent succeed. Tell us that that is something to want to emulate. Elsewhere in the developed world, being paid fairly to work for someone else, who manages the company well, allows everyone to prosper. Earlier someone said that it wasn't that big a deal that between 120+ and 160+ Americans kill themselves daily. Tells you all you need to know about this country's chances in the longer term.
Exactly. This discussion is a difference in values, not really about logic, or production of value/wealth.
A lot of people on this forum view any form of collectivism as inherently evil and freedom-taking. I agree to an extent, but I'm also not too stupid to realize we live in a complex, interconnected system called society.
Even capitalism relies on collectivism. It just rewards those at the top who take advantage of the underlying social structure with capital and their social skills/intelligence. That's what our system rewards, one part direct wealth creation (bootstrapping, hard work) and one much larger part letting others create wealth for you (smart work, enabled by capital). It is what it is.
You can talk about "paid what you're worth" and "your income is the value you provide" all day long. But you cannot underwrite an ethical basis for this value you provide. Jeff Bezos is not our lord and savior, contrary to popular belief.
There's also the notion that we're standing on the shoulders of giants, and take our unoriginal ideas from someone else in the past. Perhaps the idea wasn't actionable at the time. Should the inventor or the executor get the cash value for the idea? And hey, should James Clerk Maxwell's family get some of the money for every invention that uses electricity? That's what patent law tries to resolve, but we all know how messy that can actually be. A conversation for a different time, it could really drag on.
I go back to the drug dealer example. A economic trade which Marc Paolella condemned in an eariler post, lumping them in with brigands. That's a free market trade, right? But it's illegal, because it's (presumably) unethical for several reasons. So, which is it? All value exchanges are ethical? Or some aren't, and must be corrected with legal force? If you're going to be pro-free-market at least be consistent, people!
Or maybe, the legal/economic status quo is absolutely perfect as is, and nothing should change. Seems very likely
I cannot legally be fully self-sufficient. I cannot own property outright, producing my own food, water, heat, clothing ect. without someone coming to take my property tax or take me to jail. I am thus forced to be productive. Is there much of a difference, anyways?
You can be self-sufficient. I think maybe you don't understand what that term means. There is nothing about self-sufficiency that precludes your responsibility to pay tax to the country your self-sufficient self resides in.
In fact - there are actual ways around paying taxes, if you qualify as a non-prof, farm, or religious organization. There are active communes alive and well even in today's age, that are 100% self-sufficient and don't pay tax. The individuals living on the commune would pay income tax if they work outside the commune and get paid. But inside it, there is no money, no revenue, and no need for money, and therefore nothing to tax.
The bottom line is you have no right to get anyone’s money without asking them for it. You have no right to ANY income that you don’t earn. Get your hands out of the pockets of your fellow citizens. Earn your own money.
Tell that to all the states that receive funds from the Federal Government, that OTHER states pay into.
Such as - hm - well - New Jersey for one. New Jersey is among those states that pay more into the Federal Government than it receives in goods and services. Where does all that extra money go? It goes to states like Mississippi, which lives off the Federal dole and still manages to have some of the worst poverty in the country.
If you truly mean that your money shouldn't pay for anyone else, then you need to take a hard look at where your money already is going. Hint: it's not going to you.
The bottom line is you have no right to get anyone’s money without asking them for it. You have no right to ANY income that you don’t earn. Get your hands out of the pockets of your fellow citizens. Earn your own money.
Says who?
It isn't being "taken" hence why its asked for in the form of a bill proposal.
40% of my income goes to taxes, I approve of UBI+VAT as Andrew Yang was proposing it.
Most of the studies on UBI have had positive results, UBI is much more affordable in the long-run than to continue throwing money into homeless programs its also shown to reduce recidivism.
Haven't we learned anything from all these half-measures? They end up costing tax-payers more in the long run, We just spent billions to prop-up the market and that's not nearly enough, Rumors of a possible 2T plan have been circulating for the past couple of days; Which means that if a bill like this passes tax payers will be once again stuck bailing out corps as usual.
I find it interesting how its always 'welfare' when the money goes to the tax-payers but a 'bailout' when its helping the corporations, It plays well with the whole bootstrap mentality that many have.
Plus, if you hand out $1,000 every month (or name your own amount) then everything would get more expensive, plus you would have the added expense of administering the system.
The state of Alaska has something like UBI (fossil fuel royalty payments). Check out the prices of everyday goods up there some time.
Very salient point here.
I'm not completely against UBI. In today's world, $1,000/month is not enough for people to avoid work. The laziness/welfare argument is a stretch. In many parts of the country, that could cover someone's rent or mortgage payment but it's not paying ALL the bills. The extra savings (in theory) would pump more money into the economy since most working class and middle class people would spend it.....the extra circulation of money would create more jobs and lead to more of a boom.
The flip side of course is that the cost of everything would likely rise since people would have more money and could (in theory) afford more "stuff." Why charge $1,000/month for rent when you know everyone is getting UBI. I could bump up the price to $1,300. Joe Schmoe has an OK job and works full-time. With UBI, he'll gladly pay $1,300/month since UBI covers most of it and he's only out of pocket $300.
Part of me wonders if it'd work better at a lower payout, say $500. Personally though, if I received $500 month, it would just end up in either my savings account or my brokerage accounts. For other people it could actually help them pay bills or get out of debt. It can definitely be done....but how the logistics are handled would be very interesting.
This ^^
.
People only think of the those who abuse safety nets. They don't think of the people who lost a spouse due to natural causes of death, or whose spouses got soo abusive that they had to leave them (and the homes and incomes they provided), who use such safety nets to recover. If we were going to get rid of nice things because a few are exploiting it, then this is why we can't have nice things.
Speaking of which, Countries with UBI still have people working. UBI only covers the basics. If you want better food, want to buy consumers products, then you work so you can make more money. Plus, those people do have enough pride and work ethic to actually do better. However, they know that if something goes amiss, they lose their income but can still fallback, with insurance until they can get back on their feet.
Corporations continually get kickbacks via lobbying
Amazon paid 0 federal income tax. If a company makes THAT MUCH money (billions and billions) but doesn't pay taxes, and gets a rebate on top of that.. that far surpasses all of the "lazy Americans sitting on their asses doing nothing", making them look like a drop in the bucket. https://youtu.be/qNg55JDMDHM
A lot of people have been trained to see things through "corporate" eyes. The bootstrap talk is exactly how the financial/political elite want you to think. It frees them from responsibility and puts the onus on the regular Joe. The elite should serve the less fortunate, the common man, not vice-versa. The last 40-ish years of trickle down and the demographic that allowed it to happen is big on bootstrap talk.......I got mine, now you gotta get yours. Future generations see things differently.
Also, the millenial talk is kind of silly at this point. The oldest Millenials are pushing 40. Gen Z is on deck now as they're the high school/college/young adults we're seeing out and about today.
Because look at what the stimulus checks have done to the economy. This is what happens when you give free money away.
But I know basic arithmetic is hard for liberals, it's just spend spend spend.
I wasn't even against the checks, nobody really was. Just saying.
UBI would never work permanently. In America you have to work.
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.
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.
