[SubiculumCode]

Yes, this has been proposed. However, I do not like it. I believe people know and should have control of how they spend a basic income. Basic assets sounds to me a lot like "everyone gets a Lada" the horrible car of the Soviet Union.

Moreover, I do not see how this is better than just giving an income. Income is more flexible and fungible. There are already economies of scale in a free market.

[grahamburger]

But what if someone gambles away their basic income, or has it scammed from them? Tough luck, back to the streets?

[SubiculumCode]

They get some more next month.

The idea of basic income is not equality of outcomes, its equality of opportunity.

The problem I have with most socialist policies is not that funds shouldn't be provided to help the poor/everyone, but because the plans often are designed around the belief that individuals should not be trusted to make decisions about their own lives.

I believe in a fiscally liberal libertarian policy..Federal money should be distributed to individuals and local governments without any strings attached, because only the Federal government has the power of printing currency to meet the public good.

In aggregate, I do trust people to make good decisions, and those that do will get rewarded.

[luckylion]

> They get some more next month.

So no food for them for the rest of the month? Good luck with that.

[zensavona]

> But what if someone gambles away their {salaried | welfare | annuity | retirement | pension} income, or has it scammed from them? Tough luck, back to the streets?

Either people are treated like adults and manage their own finances, or we are all wards of the state to some degree.

[grahamburger]

> But what if someone gambles away their {salaried | welfare | annuity | retirement | pension} income, or has it scammed from them? Tough luck, back to the streets?

This is exactly what happens today, and it's ostensibly the problem that UBI is attempting to solve. If UBI doesn't solve that problem then it's just a very expensive waste of resources.

[luckylion]

> Either people are treated like adults and manage their own finances, or we are all wards of the state to some degree.

If they were adults with the ability to manage their finances, make smart decisions etc, only a tiny fraction of them would have to rely on the state in the first place, so that's not convincing to me.

[tuukkah]

If you lose all your money so that you have nothing to eat for the month, then you need social care for sorting out issues.

[luckylion]

That's kinda my point: UBI is supposed to replace all other welfare programs. There won't be anything else.

[tuukkah]

The way I have understood UBI, it would replace benefits and allowances but not programs such as universal health care or universal social care - I suppose it depends on how you define a welfare program.

[SubiculumCode]

UBI is generally not a replacement for health care or for mental health services. In any case, there are numerous people who trade their food benefits for drug money already.

[SubiculumCode]

Perhaps after having little to eat, they'll spend their $1,000 freedom dividend on some food on the 1st of the month. Lesson learned.

[carlob]

In many European countries gambling is essentially a public monopoly. Gambling away your income is the same as volunteering to pay more taxes.

[pawelmurias]

They can then apply to the potatoes + a bunk bed plan.

[rossenberg79]

> I believe people know and should have control of how they spend a basic income.

Why? If it’s not being spent on those things anyway isn’t the person just making a financial mistake?

[SubiculumCode]

Because I believe in a free people. I believe in market solutions. I believe people should be allowed to take risks. I believe people often know what they need more than someone who lives far away.

[mantas]

They're not free people if they live on UBI handouts.

[SubiculumCode]

Its not a handout in my American Centric opinion. It is a dividend or inheritance from our forefathers building a kick-ass country the likes of which earth has never before seen.

[mantas]

IMO it's handout if it's government deciding how much someone gets. And when it's not based on the person's contribution.

You can't be a free man if your wellbeing 100% depends on someone else's decisions regardless of your actions.

[luckylion]

And when they make a mistake, do we just give them new money because they've put all the old money into the lottery?

[basicplus2]

Lottery takings should go to help paying for welfare

[jdblair]

Yes, next month we do.

[luckylion]

I personally have a few extra calories that can last me through a few weeks if need be. What about those that can't? Let them starve? Create a welfare service to save them? Hope for charities?

Sounds a lot like we'd just push the problem a few meters away and then run into it again.

[Jedi72]

Believe away Dorothy, reality is a small % of the population, i.e. millions of people, are pretty much screw-ups. Welfare is the blanket solution for how we deal with it. Giving everyone BI and taking away peoples welfare is going to fail in all these cases, so will fail generally. Even here in Australia where we have good welfare we still have government housing, soup kitchens and tonmes of other real-assistance programs.

[SubiculumCode]

Having lived poor, known a lot of poor people, and having lived on welfare as I got my PhD. (first gen college student), I can say that you are wrong about most poor people. They generally make good decisions, given their situation and means. Those that don't are usually addicted to drugs, and they already trade their food benefits away for those drugs.

Welfare (at least in America) has all the wrong incentives that make it difficult to improve your situation (e.g. lose benefits and all your time if you get a minimum wage job, and who is going to watch the kids now).

[Jedi72]

Yes there are poor people who work hard. There are also rich people who become crackheads. I never actually mentioned poor people I just said some people are screw-ups, which is true.