Universal Basic Income

[Jirmeria]

Hello all. I can't seem to find a Universal Basic Income forum. It seems to be mentioned from time to time in other forums, but there don't seem to be any forums just for Universal Basic Income, so I am making one now. So to be clear a Universal Basic Income (UBI), sometimes called a Basic Income (BI), Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI), Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), citizen's dividend, citizen's income, etc... is a social safety net scheme in which all citizen's receive a minimum amount of money from their government or some other institution unconditionally. They will receive this money regardless if they work or don't work, regardless if they are wealthy or poor, the only criteria that is often taken into account in various versions of a UBI is citizenship (or legal residency in some cases) and age (which may or may not be a factor in receiving or how much you receive). The UBI is often used as a means to ensure that all citizen's have a minimum standard of living to survive, but not be in luxury; it allows for people whom work and therefor add value to the economy to make more money if they wish.

So what do people think of a UBI? What are the Pros and Cons of a UBI? Do you think we will eventually implement a UBI? What are the problems with a UBI? Can and How would we fix these problems? What would society look like with a UBI? Discuss.

Thank You. I am curious what viewpoints are out there on NationStates about this issue.

[Venerable Bede]

I think your heart is in the right place, but the state should be addressing the disease more than symptom: money like this would probably go more to consumerism than improving quality of life.

[Major-Tom]

I'd only ever support a UBI if it was implemented in the form of a negative income tax, wherein welfare is replaced with a given income and nothing more to those in poverty, and only a small amount so it acts as a way to lift them out of poverty, as opposed to a crutch. Its a theory that both left and right leaning economists have endorsed as having the potential to be very successful.

Still, I'd be wary if a UBI existed alongside a welfare state, thats a recipe for economic bankruptcy.

[Chessmistress]

Recently there have been a referendum in Switzerland, about giving UBI to all people.
It has been rejected:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060

[Venerable Bede]

I'd only ever support a UBI if it was implemented in the form of a negative income tax, wherein welfare is replaced with a given income and nothing more to those in poverty, and only a small amount so it acts as a way to lift them out of poverty, as opposed to a crutch. Its a theory that both left and right leaning economists have endorsed as having the potential to be very successful.

Still, I'd be wary if a UBI existed alongside a welfare state, thats a recipe for economic bankruptcy.

A small amount of money isn't going to lift anyone out of poverty, it's just an analgesic.

[Cetacea]

I think your heart is in the right place, but the state should be addressing the disease more than symptom: money like this would probably go more to consumerism than improving quality of life.

the thing is consumerism isn't bad per se. With a UBI in place to cover basics like Accommodation, Food and Health etc then all other spending is discretionary. Consumption is a key to creating wealth and thus employment as buyers and sellers interact in the Marketplace. The UBI supports that allowing everyone a chance to participate in this trade without the burden of basic survival.

I own my house mortgage free, every day I wake up knowing that I can spend my money on whatever I want be it bread and meat (supporting the local Supermarket), lunch at a fancy cafe (supporting the watress and cook) or a new laptop (supporting the retailer and computer technicians) and know that at the end of the day I have a secure bed to go home to - thats the value of a UBI.

[Major-Tom]

I'd only ever support a UBI if it was implemented in the form of a negative income tax, wherein welfare is replaced with a given income and nothing more to those in poverty, and only a small amount so it acts as a way to lift them out of poverty, as opposed to a crutch. Its a theory that both left and right leaning economists have endorsed as having the potential to be very successful.

Still, I'd be wary if a UBI existed alongside a welfare state, thats a recipe for economic bankruptcy.

A small amount of money isn't going to lift anyone out of poverty, it's just an analgesic.

I should've rephrased that. It acts as a way to alleviate the most crippling symptoms of poverty to help those who maybe can't help themselves land back on their feet for a little while. And even then, poverty in America, for example, has only increased, so it goes to show that perhaps welfare programs and "throwing money at it" needs to be re-evaluated.

[Community Values]

I'm pro universal basic income for the poor. Or a negative income tax.

It's a lot simpler than our current Welfare system, but still helps people.

[Chessmistress]

This is the real problem
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33327659

If you are sitting at a desk, driving a taxi or carrying a hod, stop for a moment and ask: could a robot or machine do this job better?

The answer, unfortunately for you, is probably - yes.

The debate about whether machines will eliminate the need for human employment is no longer just academic.

Boston Consulting Group predicts that by 2025, up to a quarter of jobs will be replaced by either smart software or robots, while a study from Oxford University has suggested that 35% of existing UK jobs are at risk of automation in the next 20 years.

Office workers who do repetitive jobs such as writing reports or drawing up spreadsheets are easily replaced with software

This problem cannot be avoided by hiding the head under the sand, like an ostrich.
Conservatives really wants to deal with a mass of enraged people?
Conservatives really have the power to deal with a mass of enraged people?
What they'll do? They'll hide in their gathered communities ordering to police and the military to open fire against the rioters?
And when election day will come?
Are we going to "cure" the "illness" represented by democracy, then?

The armored towers of multinational corporations rise above the ruins of the democracies that gave them birth.

Soldiers of the Yakuza defend them.

Bonus point for the first who guess the citation

[Chessmistress]

I'd only ever support a UBI if it was implemented in the form of a negative income tax, wherein welfare is replaced with a given income and nothing more to those in poverty, and only a small amount so it acts as a way to lift them out of poverty, as opposed to a crutch. Its a theory that both left and right leaning economists have endorsed as having the potential to be very successful.

Still, I'd be wary if a UBI existed alongside a welfare state, thats a recipe for economic bankruptcy.

A small amount of money isn't going to lift anyone out of poverty, it's just an analgesic.

A small amount of money isn't meant to lift people out of poverty: it's meant to avoid that they feel the need to place a bullet in the head of people with more money. Or even eat them.

[IceBuddha]

I'm not really in favor of an unconditional Universal Basic Income. However, I would be in favor of a system where the ragbag of various social welfare programs are largely consolidated into a single refundable tax credit. Something like an über-EITC I guess.

Now, I'm not in favor of replacing all social programs with that kind of system, I would prefer that things like public education and health are treated separately.

[Fairstone]

[u][/u]


^gggg

[The Liberated Territories]

I don't think so. Any UBI would be highly inflationary unless it is purely provided by cash transfers, which I do not see happening.

[Arkiasis]

I think in the future when most jobs are automated there will be a place for a UBI as humans will become less and less required to keep the world running. But right now? No, we're not ready.

[Venerable Bede]

A small amount of money isn't going to lift anyone out of poverty, it's just an analgesic.

A small amount of money isn't meant to lift people out of poverty: it's meant to avoid that they feel the need to place a bullet in the head of people with more money. Or even eat them.

Well once they start thinking like that, then they're no better than the rich.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am a strong supporter, for three main reasons.

1. No one should be denied necessities, or the chance to have a decent life, simply because they are poor. Contrary to Right wing rhetoric, not all poor people are that way simply because they're lazy, and even if they were, laziness should not be punished with death or a lifetime of suffering. Enough with the "Kick a man while he's down" school of economics.

2. Their is a real possibility that automation, in coming years, will result in their simply not being jobs for much of the population. Meaning that we have a choice between much of the population, possibly a majority, being unable to support themselves (a recipe for armed revolt and extremism, which we've already seen quite a bit of with things like the Arab Spring and the election of Trump), and providing everyone with an assurance of a decent life regardless of weather they can make enough money for it.

3. Their are some careers which contribute to society, but are not considerably lucrative, or not immediately so. Take local theatre. Very few people (if any) make a lot of money doing it, but it contributes to the economy, entertainment, and culture of a community. Or take an entrepreneur, who wants to create a new invention or start a new business but can't, because he doesn't have the time and money to start and has to worry about where he gets the next paycheque.

A universal income would allow people to take more risks and make more contributions which contribute to society without being immediately lucrative.

My big concern is that introducing universal basic income is used as an excuse to say that other programs, like public health care or education, are no longer necessary, with universal income potentially not being enough to make up the difference. And some recipients making poor use of the money they get and then not having enough for essentials.

Universal basic income can work if it is done in tandem with a public health care system and affordable housing.

[Chessmistress]

I am a strong supporter, for three main reasons.

1. No one should be denied necessities, or the chance to have a decent life, simply because they are poor. Contrary to Right wing rhetoric, not all poor people are that way simply because they're lazy, and even if they were, laziness should not be punished with death or a lifetime of suffering. Enough with the "Kick a man while he's down" school of economics.

2. Their is a real possibility that automation, in coming years, will result in their simply not being jobs for much of the population. Meaning that we have a choice between much of the population, possibly a majority, being unable to support themselves (a recipe for armed revolt and extremism, which we've already seen quite a bit of with things like the Arab Spring and the election of Trump), and providing everyone with an assurance of a decent life regardless of weather they can make enough money for it.

3. Their are some careers which contribute to society, but are not considerably lucrative, or not immediately so. Take local theatre. Very few people (if any) make a lot of money doing it, but it contributes to the economy, entertainment, and culture of a community. Or take an entrepreneur, who wants to create a new invention or start a new business but can't, because he doesn't have the time and money to start and has to worry about where he gets the next paycheque.

A universal income would allow people to take more risks and make more contributions which contribute to society without being immediately lucrative.

Agreed.

My big concern is that introducing universal basic income is used as an excuse to say that other programs, like public health care or education, are no longer necessary, with universal income potentially not being enough to make up the difference. And some recipients making poor use of the money they get and then not having enough for essentials.

Universal basic income can work if it is done in tandem with a public health care system and affordable housing.

There are compromises that must be reach.
Health care, in example, is more instrumental than education: the real battle will be fought about education.

[New Werpland]

A small amount of money isn't going to lift anyone out of poverty, it's just an analgesic.

I should've rephrased that. It acts as a way to alleviate the most crippling symptoms of poverty to help those who maybe can't help themselves land back on their feet for a little while. And even then, poverty in America, for example, has only increased, so it goes to show that perhaps welfare programs and "throwing money at it" needs to be re-evaluated.

Wouldn't that be discounted since TANF allows the states to use so much of their money to fund social programs and such? I don't think it's so easy to say "throwing money at it" doesn't work when some states spend as little as 5% of their TANF budgets on cash transfers.

[Setgavarius]

Who here loves a good Robot War/Purging of the Useless Eaters?
If yes, then happily join the anime in the trash.
If no, then support your local UBI.

[Daburuetchi]

Tbh I hate all these attempts to have capitalism without class conflict. That's the essence of modernity: let's consume but in a "safe" way. Yes I would support UBI but the whole circlejerk around it is annoying

[Daburuetchi]

I don't think so. Any UBI would be highly inflationary unless it is purely provided by cash transfers, which I do not see happening.

Conditonal cash transder prorgams like in Brazil have been great reducers of poverty. I see no reason not to support that least

[Setgavarius]

Tbh I hate all these attempts to have capitalism without class conflict. That's the essence of modernity: let's consume but in a "safe" way. Yes I would support UBI but the whole circlejerk around it is annoying

Well, it's the only way to keep the luddite rebellion from occurring which doesn't involve extermination.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fortunately the idea does seem to be gaining traction. It was recently reported that in Canada, Ontario will do a test run of basic income in some areas, and some of the local politicians on the west coast are discussing it too.

[Setgavarius]

Fortunately the idea does seem to be gaining traction. It was recently reported that in Canada, Ontario will do a test run of basic income in some areas, and some of the local politicians on the west coast are discussing it too.

Now all we have to do is see if the corporate sector approves or disapproves.

[Daburuetchi]

Tbh I hate all these attempts to have capitalism without class conflict. That's the essence of modernity: let's consume but in a "safe" way. Yes I would support UBI but the whole circlejerk around it is annoying

Well, it's the only way to keep the luddite rebellion from occurring which doesn't involve extermination.

Even then it's a temproary safeguard at best. Only decentralized planning can resolve the problem.