Universal Basic Income - UBI

[Sumadia-Belgrade]

In this topic I shall place different definitions, ideas and programs, regarding the Universal Basic Income (UBI), as well as, discuss it with other members of the forum, who'd like to make comments on this topic.

Universal basic income (UBI) is a social welfare proposal in which all citizens of a given population regularly receive a minimum income in the form of an unconditional transfer payment, i.e., without a means test or need to work. A UBI would be received independently of any other income. If the level is sufficient to meet a person's basic needs (i.e., at or above the poverty line), it is sometimes called a full basic income; if it is less than that amount, it may be called a partial basic income. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income

Universal basic income (UBI) is the concept of a government program in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money regularly. The goals of a basic income system are to alleviate poverty and replace other need-based social programs that potentially require greater bureaucratic involvement. The idea of universal basic income has gained momentum in the U.S. as automation increasingly replaces workers in manufacturing and other sectors of the economy. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/basic-income.asp

Basic income is a regular cash payment to all members of a community, without a work requirement or other conditions. https://basicincome.stanford.edu/about/what-is-ubi/

I'll put more different ideas down the topic, as this is only for the definition.
And I'd like to ask, what are your ideas on Universal Basic Income?

[Sumadia-Belgrade]

A universal basic income (UBI) is a one-time, unconditional financial gift given to all citizens by the government. Without the need for excessive bureaucratic interference, it aims to reduce poverty and increase financial security without being based on possessions or income.

The effects of job loss, income stagnation, and social discrimination are only a few of the issues for which UBI has been suggested as a solution. The effectiveness of UBI in eradicating poverty, however, is still up for debate.

The idea of a basic income has gained popularity, where everyone receives a little amount of money regardless of their employment situation. Reformers and futurists alike support this approach because it has the potential to eradicate poverty, reduce inequality, eliminate patronizing bureaucracy, neutralize the threat of widespread unemployment, and elevate the value society accords to meaningful endeavors.

The initiative had its beginnings in 2011 when Iran implemented a widespread cash-transfer strategy to make up for significant reductions in subsidies for fuel, bread, water, electricity, and heating. A monthly payment of around 29 percent of the median income was given to each household, or an additional $1.50 per day.

Mongolia, an East Asian nation situated between China and Russia, has a thriving mining industry. 90% of the GDP of the nation is derived from minerals, which are a major component of its export-driven economy.

The Mongolian government began testing a universal resource-financed stipend for kids in 2004. The Human Development Fund (HDF), which was financed with mining dividends in order to offer monthly cash payments to every person between 2010 and 2012, took its place in 2010.

Because individuals received direct and equal portions of the nation’s wealth as co-owners, this experience gave people a distinct viewpoint on public ownership and income sharing in the mineral industry. However, HDF spending far outpaced mining income, which ultimately caused a fund deficit.

https://danielmichaelhurt.medium.com/the-universal-basic-income-in-mongolia-2ae50dcbb830

[Technoscience Leftwing]

This is a very good initiative, I fully support it. The main thing is that the universal basic income does not depreciate due to inflation. Part of it can be given out in kind - a key to a residential module, a card for travel on public transport, cereals, vitamins, sugar, salt, crackers, a first aid kit, sets of durable clothes of different colors and styles. This is a great initiative! You can also add free books, textbooks, music, computer games and programs to this ration.

I am afraid that the monopolistic bourgeoisie and bureaucracy will not allow the provision of a basic income to citizens in order to keep citizens under the fear of hunger and poverty. But the socialist party, having come to power, could provide a basic income.

[Saiwana]

It doesn't work and is bad policy. If any government can just print money and distribute it without inflation, they would do it.

The "COVID relief" crap in the US ruined prices for a long time. The prices unfortunately will never go back down without allowing for some period of deflation, but inflation is finally just now back at the rate that is wanted, in the 1 to 2% range.

[Siluvia]

I strongly, strongly, oppose UBI. I will present a simple argument against it here, but there are many other reasons why I oppose it.

Essentially, everyone already has a UBI of $0/month. So what happens when you add more to it? Well, because we live in a world of fiat currencies, that money added to your UBI doesn’t have any real value; its value is only determined by how willing people are to accept it as valuable. So when sellers know that you have x amount of money lying around, they can raise prices because now you can pay extra. If $1000 is added to your income, you now have $1000 a month that you can spend in the market. Simple supply and demand math shows that sellers will notice your increased ability to pay, and will raise prices accordingly. That $1000/month will almost completely vanish as it is incorporated into your basic cost-of-living expenses that were previously cheaper.

Another matter is that UBI is controlled by the government, which means you become dependent and reliant upon the government to pay for your cost of living. And now the government can take that away! Political dissidents beware, or the government will take away your food security. It’s easy to see how leftist governments will use UBI to oppress their opponents; there will almost certainly be provisions in UBI laws to exclude people accused of “hate speech” or whatever other nonsense the Left comes up with, from the program. And due to the aforementioned increase in basic cost of living, this really becomes a dystopian situation where criticism of the government, or even just disagreement with it, will result in your family’s starvation.

[New-Erie]

I can understand the support for UBI, but I do not believe we have the ability or need for it yet.

Edit: I’ll elaborate about my beliefs I’m when at my computer

[Malorossi]

This is a very good initiative, I fully support it. The main thing is that the universal basic income does not depreciate due to inflation. Part of it can be given out in kind - a key to a residential module, a card for travel on public transport, cereals, vitamins, sugar, salt, crackers, a first aid kit, sets of durable clothes of different colors and styles. This is a great initiative! You can also add free books, textbooks, music, computer games and programs to this ration.

I am afraid that the monopolistic bourgeoisie and bureaucracy will not allow the provision of a basic income to citizens in order to keep citizens under the fear of hunger and poverty. But the socialist party, having come to power, could provide a basic income.

social work theorists have been fighting for 300 years for centralized TARGETED assistance to replace cash handouts, the modern generation of socialists, in favor of big capital, who want to support the military instead of the social apparatus, are ready to send the fruit of their labor down the drain. I am against it, assistance must be targeted and guaranteed

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So, the idea behind UBI is solid, but UBI is a bad way to achieve the desired outcome.

We need to compare UBI to a system of Universally Provided Goods and Services, UPGS. Under UPGS, people achieve basic goods and services, like food, shelter, education, healthcare, communication and transport for free.

On paper, this looks the same as UBI, where the government gives enough money to buy those things on the so-called 'free market', but there are tremendous differences. UBI leaves in place for-profit industries surrounding basic needs. This is a shortcoming, because it fails to take into account that the 'markets' for basic goods are always failed markets. People cannot choose not to buy food and shelter, so providers can provide extortionate prices. It is no wonder that we count 'disposable income' only after subtracting rent and groceries.

Because UBI leaves those companies untouched, it allows them to maintain their strong economic and political powers. It would be little more than the State directly siphoning tax money into the pockets of landlords, the real benificiaries of UBI, who could then use that money to influence the government, as they are doing today. UBI, when compared to UPGS, mostly benefits a wealthy class by allowing it to exist while acknowledging that their existence is a problem.

Instead, those institutions should be destroyed. Food, shelter, healthcare and education should be provided completely free of any charge. And it should not be provided by a State either, because that would make it too susceptible to the same power mechanics as we see in the market. As we saw in the Soviet Union. So, instead, communities should be able to provide in their needs decentrally, through socialised building programs and community ownership of important means. Only in that way can freedom truly be obtained.

So I like the idealism behind UBI, but I detest the lack of vision and the way in which it assumes capitalist relations.

[Diarcesia]

In this topic I shall place different definitions, ideas and programs, regarding the Universal Basic Income (UBI), as well as, discuss it with other members of the forum, who'd like to make comments on this topic.

Universal basic income (UBI) is a social welfare proposal in which all citizens of a given population regularly receive a minimum income in the form of an unconditional transfer payment, i.e., without a means test or need to work. A UBI would be received independently of any other income. If the level is sufficient to meet a person's basic needs (i.e., at or above the poverty line), it is sometimes called a full basic income; if it is less than that amount, it may be called a partial basic income. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income

Universal basic income (UBI) is the concept of a government program in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money regularly. The goals of a basic income system are to alleviate poverty and replace other need-based social programs that potentially require greater bureaucratic involvement. The idea of universal basic income has gained momentum in the U.S. as automation increasingly replaces workers in manufacturing and other sectors of the economy. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/basic-income.asp

Basic income is a regular cash payment to all members of a community, without a work requirement or other conditions. https://basicincome.stanford.edu/about/what-is-ubi/

I'll put more different ideas down the topic, as this is only for the definition.
And I'd like to ask, what are your ideas on Universal Basic Income?

What's your opinion on the matter? It's a requirement for NSG thread OPs to share theirs.

[Mardesurria]

The notion is interesting, but I’m pretty sure that it would be a dumb thing to do. Rather than simply giving away their money to people like this, the government should focus on funding more specific programs and helping people get jobs.

This is because of two factors — the first one being that government debt would increase substantially. This would result in the government printing out more money and therefore increasing inflation, which in turn increases poverty, which then eliminates any progress made by a UBI program.

The second factor would be the fact that most of this money would become wasted quickly. According to a SAMHSA survey, 38% of homeless people abused alcohol, while 26% abused other drugs. This would mean that most of the money given away would be spent quickly on these things. Therefore, a better alternative to giving away money would be to set up shelters and rehabs for people who need it.

To sum it up, a UBI would be useless, and that many other things would work better than it.

[Danternoust]

Negative income tax overcomes concerns about a negative marginal tax rate cause by welfare. People are surprisingly rational economic actors, they won't advance in life if it would impact their income excessively, creating welfare traps.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

This is a very good initiative, I fully support it. The main thing is that the universal basic income does not depreciate due to inflation. Part of it can be given out in kind - a key to a residential module, a card for travel on public transport, cereals, vitamins, sugar, salt, crackers, a first aid kit, sets of durable clothes of different colors and styles. This is a great initiative! You can also add free books, textbooks, music, computer games and programs to this ration.

I am afraid that the monopolistic bourgeoisie and bureaucracy will not allow the provision of a basic income to citizens in order to keep citizens under the fear of hunger and poverty. But the socialist party, having come to power, could provide a basic income.

social work theorists have been fighting for 300 years for centralized TARGETED assistance to replace cash handouts, the modern generation of socialists, in favor of big capital, who want to support the military instead of the social apparatus, are ready to send the fruit of their labor down the drain. I am against it, assistance must be targeted and guaranteed

But isn't the same level of protection against poverty through equal payments a more egalitarian solution than targeted assistance?

[Shannonclare]

In this topic I shall place different definitions, ideas and programs, regarding the Universal Basic Income (UBI), as well as, discuss it with other members of the forum, who'd like to make comments on this topic.

Universal basic income (UBI) is a social welfare proposal in which all citizens of a given population regularly receive a minimum income in the form of an unconditional transfer payment, i.e., without a means test or need to work. A UBI would be received independently of any other income. If the level is sufficient to meet a person's basic needs (i.e., at or above the poverty line), it is sometimes called a full basic income; if it is less than that amount, it may be called a partial basic income. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income

Universal basic income (UBI) is the concept of a government program in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money regularly. The goals of a basic income system are to alleviate poverty and replace other need-based social programs that potentially require greater bureaucratic involvement. The idea of universal basic income has gained momentum in the U.S. as automation increasingly replaces workers in manufacturing and other sectors of the economy. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/basic-income.asp

Basic income is a regular cash payment to all members of a community, without a work requirement or other conditions. https://basicincome.stanford.edu/about/what-is-ubi/

I'll put more different ideas down the topic, as this is only for the definition.
And I'd like to ask, what are your ideas on Universal Basic Income?

would get rid of all the expensive means-testing bureaucracy and also get rid of the welfare trap, and it wouldnt be extra inflationary if we just reworked our current welfare budget.

also, the inflation argument is just the iron law of wages again, and thats been debunked since marx's time.

[Shannonclare]

This is a very good initiative, I fully support it. The main thing is that the universal basic income does not depreciate due to inflation. Part of it can be given out in kind - a key to a residential module, a card for travel on public transport, cereals, vitamins, sugar, salt, crackers, a first aid kit, sets of durable clothes of different colors and styles. This is a great initiative! You can also add free books, textbooks, music, computer games and programs to this ration.

I am afraid that the monopolistic bourgeoisie and bureaucracy will not allow the provision of a basic income to citizens in order to keep citizens under the fear of hunger and poverty. But the socialist party, having come to power, could provide a basic income.

the bourgeoisie would sooner implement *any* reform than have the class revolt.

[Batakhovia]

I'm a big advocate for it. It would ultimately be cheaper than a lot of welfare benefits currently in place, I believe, and we're approaching a stage where work is not really as important as it used to be in certain instances; with the automation of demeaning manual labour industries underway, UBI is a really good way to continue with the acceleration of the automation of sectors of the economy whilst making sure that folk don't get the raw end of the stick.
Ultimately, I would still choose to work if UBI was in place, I do think there are still good incentives to do so and it won't just make people lazier. But it's also important to remember that we work to live, we don't live to work.

[Batakhovia]

The second factor would be the fact that most of this money would become wasted quickly. According to a SAMHSA survey, 38% of homeless people abused alcohol, while 26% abused other drugs. This would mean that most of the money given away would be spent quickly on these things. Therefore, a better alternative to giving away money would be to set up shelters and rehabs for people who need it.

I can only speak anecdotally, having been homeless myself and in some of these shelters at one stage in my life, but the money that goes towards alcohol and drugs is usually hustled out of other people by the homeless, which is why you should be very careful about giving away your money to street beggars; for many of them, it's just a lifestyle. Whatever welfare they're getting, they're typically spending on groceries and stuff.

[Kerwa]

This is one of the less bad ideas I have heard. It is certainly a lot better than the usual plan to end poverty by spending lots of money on middle class schools, BA programs and social workers.

One thing I would do if I was in charge for a day would be set up a system where people could get a basic free meal whenever they wanted. A high quality one too there’d be none of the shit school lunch stuff caused by corruption.

To really tackle poverty however, it’s a matter of creating stable productive communities where everyone has a place. This will never be done at this stage of financial capitalism which, it has been argued, is often worse than feudalism in some respects.

[New-Erie]

I can understand the support for UBI, but I do not believe we have the ability or need for it yet.

Edit: I’ll elaborate about my beliefs I’m when at my computer

It will be awhile, so I am doing it on mobile, I’m sorry for any mistakes

---

I believe that one day soon UBI will be necessary, but we are most definitely not there yet. Before it is adopted, the economy will have to be either mostly or completely automated, with high taxes on the wealthy, and say, 4,000 dollars a month to every citizen over the age of 18 without a job.

I would find it unlikely if this would be implemented within 100-200 years.

---

Or a negative income tax will be created, with rates similar to this



IncomeAmount received by citizen
9,0001,000
8,0002,000
7,0003,000
6,0004,000
5,0005,000
4,0006,000
3,0007,000
2,0008,000
1,0009,000
010,000
Amounts are in dollars
A negative income tax could be implemented sooner, and for less money(probably)
I would still find it unlikely if it would be implemented within the next 50 years

Edit: I have somehow messed a table up

[Malorossi]

social work theorists have been fighting for 300 years for centralized TARGETED assistance to replace cash handouts, the modern generation of socialists, in favor of big capital, who want to support the military instead of the social apparatus, are ready to send the fruit of their labor down the drain. I am against it, assistance must be targeted and guaranteed

But isn't the same level of protection against poverty through equal payments a more egalitarian solution than targeted assistance?

a paralyzed invalid does not need money but a free social worker, a prisoner needs rehabilitation after a place of imprisonment, as do soldiers after a war. In conflict families, a social psychologist is needed more than any monetary payments. A young family needs more money than just an unemployed person. And replacing all this with a monthly cash payment, "and then do as you wish" is the path of non-targeted assistance, which leads to the emergence of poor industrialists (who will not have the motivation to earn money since they already receive a living wage that can be drunk away). Therefore, if the choice is between an unconditional basic income and targeted assistance, then targeted assistance is better

[Kaldon]

I like the idea but just target the poorer folk. I don’t think the mega millionaires need a monthly income of £1000.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

But isn't the same level of protection against poverty through equal payments a more egalitarian solution than targeted assistance?

a paralyzed invalid does not need money but a free social worker, a prisoner needs rehabilitation after a place of imprisonment, as do soldiers after a war. In conflict families, a social psychologist is needed more than any monetary payments. A young family needs more money than just an unemployed person. And replacing all this with a monthly cash payment, "and then do as you wish" is the path of non-targeted assistance, which leads to the emergence of poor industrialists (who will not have the motivation to earn money since they already receive a living wage that can be drunk away). Therefore, if the choice is between an unconditional basic income and targeted assistance, then targeted assistance is better

Of course, these sorts of assistance can be provided next to UBI. In fact, people would likely even do it for free if they get a UBI. You get much stronger communities that way. The choicr isn't between 'only UBI and nothing else' and 'the current system'.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I like the idea but just target the poorer folk. I don’t think the mega millionaires need a monthly income of £1000.

Mega millionaires need not exist. That's why universal guarenteed goods and services are better than UBI.

[Malorossi]

a paralyzed invalid does not need money but a free social worker, a prisoner needs rehabilitation after a place of imprisonment, as do soldiers after a war. In conflict families, a social psychologist is needed more than any monetary payments. A young family needs more money than just an unemployed person. And replacing all this with a monthly cash payment, "and then do as you wish" is the path of non-targeted assistance, which leads to the emergence of poor industrialists (who will not have the motivation to earn money since they already receive a living wage that can be drunk away). Therefore, if the choice is between an unconditional basic income and targeted assistance, then targeted assistance is better

Of course, these sorts of assistance can be provided next to UBI. In fact, people would likely even do it for free if they get a UBI. You get much stronger communities that way. The choicr isn't between 'only UBI and nothing else' and 'the current system'.

Well, unconditional basic income was created to relieve the bureaucratic burden of the social sphere, i.e. replacing all targeted assistance with uniform payments for everyone. In Russia, they tried to do this in the early 2000s, protests began that only miraculously did not flow into a revolution. If, according to your concept, as I understand it, you are still my ideological comrade-socialist, these things will complement each other, then I am for it, but here too with reservations, for those whose income is more than the average-median by more than 30-50%, income is not supposed

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

I would say any full-time job should pay enough to live on, but they don't. The growing wealth gap needs to be countered.

[James_xenoland]

Under a system of Universal Public Work Services of some type it may make sense. But as a no questions asked free for all.. it is hard to even think of it as a fantasy or product of wishful dreaming.