[tuxidomasx]

To be honest, the idea of universal income appeals to me because it sounds like free money.

So one could simply decide not to work at all and use that UBI money for housing, food, and habits and everybody would be fine with that.

I can see how that would have appealed to my 20-something year old self; and it's not much different than how it appeals to my 30-something year old self.

[bluGill]

You lost me with the "and habits". Bill Gates has said he wants his kids to have enough money to do anything, but not so much they can do nothing. Which is to say you can get a good education, but at some point you need to do something with your life other than gamboling, drugs and prostitutes [you can substitute/add whatever wasteful habits you want here]. It is quite obvious (almost a straw-man) that if everybody did that society would collapse.

I want enough of a fall back that people survive. I want it uncomfortable enough that people decide to get a more productive job if they can. (leaving only the disabled to actually live on the basic income)

Of course I don't know what your habits are. If they are walking around the park you can do that cheaply, I'm willing to take the risk that you won't get bored quickly doing that.

[ythn]

At what point is your definition of "discomfort" another person's definition of "poverty?" Discomfort today is poverty tomorrow, especially if the standard of living keeps going up.

[bluGill]

this is a trick question and the fact that I do not have an answer is why I ultimately oppose the idea (everything else I can see the pros and cons going either way so I would want to see how they plays out in practice in our culture before I give judgement on if it is good or bad).

The reason it is a trick question is based on the following two real people I know. (I'm trying to hide as many details as I can, but these are real people so there isn't much I can do)

Person A was a straight-A student until she dropped out in 10th grade. Then she a few kids by different men - all losers who rarely held any sort of job (she dropped out before getting pregnant, but getting pregnant was her plan). In short the stereotypical image of "folks standing in a welfare line"

Person B was born with Downs Syndrome. He is assistant usher at the movie theater, a job he has held for years and does okay in, but when there are problems the head usher (some kid who has only worked there for 2 weeks) takes over.

When we are talking person A: she made her bad choices and I have no sympathy for them, she can live well below the poverty line. I make some different choices: when she dropped out her life was better (no school) than mine, but by choosing to continue in school I made my life better.

When we are talking person B: life is stacked against him. He was never able to amount to anything, but he has my full sympathies. I want him to have a few luxuries in life that he will never earn himself.

There are lots of other cases you can point to where ultimately I want to give a different answer on a case by case basis.

[simion314]

The money would not be enough for you to have a decent live, maybe if you already have your own house and living is cheap, but in some countries I know that if you benefit from such program you will have to work for the community, dirty jobs like cleaning garbage from the fields or whatever the community needs, so is not free.

[ttoinou]

Free money is poor quality money. There is no such thing as a free lunch