[uk_programmer]

No. It is wrong to take from those who want to work to give to those that don't want to. I already pay almost good portion of my earnings to the government to see it squandered on nonsense (e.g. look up the HS2 project in the UK). I am just about to buy property (I've been working now for 20 years and 15 as a software engineer), If I hadn't been paying as much tax I could have bought a property years ago.

Having a form of UBI will increase the tax burden on medium to high earners such as myself. I simply don't believe it is ethical to offer UBI i.e. you are taking my earnings to fund those that unwilling to work, even if it is a tiny percentage it is still wrong on principle.

I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed).

[teekert]

In the Netherlands we basically have UBI. at least when you are judged unfit for work (i.e. because of mental issues) you loose the obligation to apply for jobs when receiving welfare. It keeps people from becoming criminals, it keeps people from ending up in the streets and avoid healthcare. In the end it saves money and makes for a more pleasant society. Most people are nice and motivated to good you know, it does hurt to make them feel like they have some kind of safety net, in fact it motivates them even more. I think in the end it is about how you judge others: Are they motivated like you or are many people lazy unethical scammers? This is a nice book on the topic by the way: [0] (Humankind (2020)), I highly recommend it for people cynical about other people, like you seem to be (in Dutch the book is called: Most people are nice ("De Meeste Mensen Deugen", allthough "Deugen" is more like "Ethical" in this case).

It's nice if you are rich, but you're going to have to build a big wall around your house and stay inside if you let inequality go rampant.

[0] https://www.rutgerbregman.com/books/

[uk_programmer]

As I said previously it is a matter of principle. UBI takes from those willing to work and gives to those that are unwilling. I am not talking about people that are unable to work.

I don't care if someone or some studies say that it works out cheaper or it maybe nicer. It is simply not ethical. However I am someone that given the choice between Monarchy and Democracy, Monarchy is the better choice.

[teekert]

You could also see unwillingness to work as a disease, like some countries do with drug abuse. Assign a coach, see what's wrong. Sure, being jobless doesn't have to be a pony camp but to have a miserable, debt building life without a paid job is certainly unnecessary at our current level of civilization (but perhaps not in our current economy/political system).

[uk_programmer]

I don't see it that way though. I have many relatives that are government scroungers. Some of them are criminals. These people just don't want to work and will do anything they can to not work. No amount of coaching will help them. They spend their time getting drunk and high (usually around their own children) which will produce another generation that think it is okay to be scroungers.

I understand these people very well (I grew up with them). I find that those that advocate for these types of programs that you refer to, to be very naive or willingly ignorant.

[teekert]

They probably get their money and food from petty crime? Like some of my family at some point. Would be nice if that could be avoided by giving them some money instead of them taking it from random shops. We should bare the burden together.

[ThrowawayR2]

They would likely take the money and continue their criminal activity anyway, no?

[uk_programmer]

> We should bare the burden together.

No. I am fed up of this pathological altruism. They should be looking for employment. End of discussion.

[Gibbon1]

> UBI takes from those willing to work and gives to those that are unwilling.

When I read stuff like this I think of the couple of thousand a year I pay in taxes that gets handed over to defense contractors in return for nothing of value.

[uk_programmer]

That is wrong as well. Just because huge amounts of money is spent somewhere else, it suddenly doesn't make it okay to give money away to those that are unwilling to work. In short: two wrongs don't make a right.

[Spearchucker]

Those who work wouldn't necessarily be taxed, so they don't need to support those unable or unwilling to work. The world today has the wealth to pull this off. The government (or some other entity) could employ people to generate wealth like traditional corporations do today. And use that to benefit all. So the billions tied up in mega corps could be used for something that actually moves us on as a civilization.

[uk_programmer]

> Those who work wouldn't necessarily be taxed, so they don't need to support those unable or unwilling to work.

We all know that those who work will be taxed more highly as that is the simplest way. It will have to be quickly as it has to be done within a few years (because that is a term limit of most politicians).

> The world today has the wealth to pull this off.

No the world today is very good at printing money, which destroys the middle class (as their savings and investments become increasingly worthless). Without the middle class you typically don't have people with disposable income which is normally used on goods and services, so you end up with less actual wealth in the economy.

> The government (or some other entity) could employ people to generate wealth like traditional corporations do today.

Governments do not generate wealth (it only takes from others and enriches the bureaucracy). Why would another entity freely give away its money?

> So the billions tied up in mega corps could be used for something that actually moves us on as a civilization.

Pure utopianism.

[gridlockd]

> No. It is wrong to take from those who want to work to give to those that don't want to.

It's also wrong to maintain a poorly working system just to prevent that scenario. Most money goes to corporate welfare to maintain jobs that should not exist. I'm not just talking about taxes, I'm talking about government debt, which dwarves tax revenue.

It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful.

> I am just about to buy property (I've been working now for 20 years and 15 as a software engineer), If I hadn't been paying as much tax I could have bought a property years ago.

If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago.

> I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed).

This amounts to a huge bureaucracy to determine who and who isn't entitled. Inevitably, some people fall through the cracks. Other people game the system.

It's not going to be fair either way. Just incentivize people to work and they will work.

If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income, they will be able to take risks. They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them. They will not be put to shame standing in line at the unemployment office.

[uk_programmer]

> It's also wrong to maintain a poorly working system just to prevent that scenario.

I agree. But that still doesn't mean you have a right to take from those (through the form of taxes) to give to those that are unwilling to work.

> It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful.

I had a job and went to university, I unloaded lorries in a warehouse it was very boring. I still spend a lot of my time outside of work reading, coding etc.

People typically have 4-6 hours plus the weekend so another 32 hours to educate themselves, yet most choose their time watching netflix, playing theirs Playstation etc, going to the bar (nothing wrong with those in themselves btw). Online courses are inexpensive these days and it is literally at your fingertips. Before there were online courses people used to go to night schools to learn. The opportunities are there but people choose not to pursue them, that is up to them.

> If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago.

There are many reasons why property prices in the UK are ridiculous. However if wasn't taxed to the high heavens I would have been able to afford it sooner regardless of why the prices were high. In any event, it was just an example of how I could have spent my money differently that would have directly benefited me.

> If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income,

I run my own business, I took a risk. I didn't need the government to help me. The willingness to take risks and better yourself doesn't need the government to be involved.

>They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them.

I hate it when people use this rationale. You get paid for going to work. You have plenty of rights at work. You are not exploited. You sign up willingly to work. It isn't exploitation. I don't buy into this whole "capitalism exploits the workers" marxist thought process.

[gridlockd]

> I agree. But that still doesn't mean you have a right to take from those (through the form of taxes) to give to those that are unwilling to work.

You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. That bit of welfare going to people who maybe don't deserve it? It's nothing compared to the money that goes to corporations to keep people working in jobs that make no economic sense.

That money is not only taken from you, it's taken from generations to come through debt. You're the sucker, either way!

Now, do you want to make things worse to enforce some idea of "fairness"? That's the essence of socialism.

> I run my own business, I took a risk. I didn't need the government to help me. The willingness to take risks and better yourself doesn't need the government to be involved.

That's survivorship bias. Depending on the business, it would be unwise to take all the risk, relative to the limited reward. I hope you managed to save enough for your retirement, unlike most small business owners.

> I hate it when people use this rationale. You get paid for going to work. You have plenty of rights at work. You are not exploited. You sign up willingly to work. It isn't exploitation. I don't buy into this whole "capitalism exploits the workers" marxist thought process.

If you want real capitalism where workers don't have all these rights that prevent an efficient economy, inevitably some workers will be in a dire economic situation and will have to take any job, lest they starve. That's an exploitable situation. I suppose you don't want that.

I'm not arguing for Marxism, I'm arguing to get rid of the entitlements and most of the worker's rights, but in turn give them a simple safety net, a very modest means of living, so that they don't have to take or keep a bad job - especially not those artificial jobs created by corporate welfare.

You must understand that keeping people working in uneconomical jobs is more wasteful than just giving them money to do nothing, because on top of it costing taxpayer money, it also costs people's time.

[uk_programmer]

> You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. That bit of welfare going to people who maybe don't deserve it? It's nothing compared to the money that goes to corporations to keep people working in jobs that make no economic sense.

Get rid of corporatism as well. Any politicians to be seen to be paid off (and I don't doubt there are quite a few) should be locked up. Corporations can that are inefficient can only survive because there isn't a fair market place and this is facilitated by politicians.

> That money is not only taken from you, it's taken from generations to come through debt. You're the sucker, either way!

At the moment it is getting taken from me. I can see it in my accounting. So don't tell me it isn't when it very clearly is.

> Now, do you want to make things worse to enforce some idea of "fairness"? That's the essence of socialism.

Oh please. This is ridiculous. I am not saying it should be fair, I am saying that in principle it is wrong to allow those that do not want to work to do nothing and be supported by those that do do the work. Doing something on principle isn't fairness. I don't like corporatism and those politicians that sold us down the river should be rotting in a prison cell.

>That's survivorship bias. Depending on the business, it would be unwise to take all the risk, relative to the limited reward. I hope you managed to save enough for your retirement, unlike most small business owners.

Claiming survivorship claim is a bit of a meme on here and your usage is utterly ridiculous, in fact it must be some sort of fallacy to claim this every-time someone simply say "You can do this without the government" they parrot survivorship bias because they read the wikipedia entry the week before.

I am a contractor (and I sub-contract to others). There are plenty of small businesses that do fine and it is trivial to setup a pension and investments through you business (took me an afternoon on the phone). This does however require you to read up on things, and take responsibility and think ahead.

> If you want real capitalism where workers don't have all these rights that prevent an efficient economy, inevitably some workers will be in a dire economic situation and will have to take any job, lest they starve. That's an exploitable situation. I suppose you don't want that.

The reality is that some people will have to work jobs they don't like. I've done it. That still isn't exploitation, it is called life mate. There are some thing that you won't like doing. I don't like working with legacy systems but most of the work involves working with them.

> I'm not arguing for Marxism, I'm arguing to get rid of the entitlements and most of the worker's rights, but in turn give them a simple safety net, a very modest means of living, so that they don't have to take or keep a bad job - especially not those artificial jobs created by corporate welfare.

"I am not arguing for socialism. I am arguing for redistributing wealth by taxing the upper-middle class further". The elites never pay these taxes (I wouldn't if I was soo rich I could pay an army of accountants to work out how to move my wealth to a tax haven).

Also when people say "corporate welfare. I am starting to suspect that it means "I don't like my boring job at global-corp, therefore if we had UBI I could read reddit at home instead and post pictures on r/unixporn instead of having to pretend to be working".

> You must understand that keeping people working in uneconomical jobs is more wasteful than just giving them money to do nothing, because on top of it costing taxpayer money, it also costs people's time.

No you must understand we have to end collusion between Government and Business. UBI will make people more dependant on Government. Once that is ended, if the job is uneconomical and there is no corporatism the problem will resolve itself as eventually businesses will have to innovate their processes if they want to stay competitive.

[gridlockd]

> At the moment it is getting taken from me. I can see it in my accounting. So don't tell me it isn't when it very clearly is.

I didn't say that. Read the sentence again. It is not only taken from you. Sure, you pay taxes, but the government is also getting deeper and deeper into debt, because your taxes aren't enough. Who is going to pay for that? Well, you, as long as your alive, then your children, if you have any. Or maybe you'll be poorer through inflation. You need to look beyond taxes and start looking at debt. Taxation is (politically) hard, debt is easy.

> I am not saying it should be fair, I am saying that in principle it is wrong....

It's only wrong because it is unfair. Same difference.

> This does however require you to read up on things, and take responsibility and think ahead.

Oh sure. Most likely, you'll be wiped out easy as soon as some minor crisis shows up at the door. There's a major recession unfolding right now, perhaps it hasn't hit you yet. You'll lose all your money, your pension, and then you'll wish you had your protected salary at some "too big to fail" company, or maybe some government desk job. You can barely afford real estate, so the risk you are taking is in no proportion to the reward. I wish it'd be different, but I didn't make the rules.

> The reality is that some people will have to work jobs they don't like. I've done it. That still isn't exploitation, it is called life mate.

Dude, you're from the UK, your worst case scenario is being on unemployment benefits. You effectively have a social safety net, you can just stop pontificating about the people who don't have one. If your options are "be out on the street" or "work 60hrs in a dead-end job for the rest of your life", it's a little bit different.

> No you must understand we have to end collusion between Government and Business. UBI will make people more dependant on Government. Once that is ended, if the job is uneconomical and there is no corporatism the problem will resolve itself as eventually businesses will have to innovate their processes if they want to stay competitive.

The whole argument to keep these companies alive is to protect jobs. If we have it your way, a lot of people will be unemployed. Maybe in the UK that's not such a big deal, but only because there is a welfare system.

Just admit that your idea of good politics is putting people out in the street and let them figure it all out. Apart from that, we're probably on the same page.

[uk_programmer]

> Just admit that your idea of good politics is putting people out in the street and let them figure it all out. Apart from that, we're probably on the same page.

When people like yourself start putting words into my mouth. It is time not to bother conversing any longer. Goodbye.

[Firadeoclus]

An alternative take: It is wrong to deprive people of the means of subsistence by privatising the commons and offering no alternative.

In that context, a UBI isn't just a support mechanism.

[uk_programmer]

They can find another job, they can start their own business, they can get contracts for their labour, if they are talented they can get patrons. There are alternatives, just because you have fallen for the siren song of UBI doesn't mean it is the only way.

[Firadeoclus]

The only way? No, as evidenced by the status quo.

Neither does getting money without labour mean that a UBI is wrong in principle.

[uk_programmer]

> Neither does getting money without labour mean that a UBI is wrong in principle.

Yes it is. Because they are taking wealth from people who do work. Everyone sidesteps this and tries to justify it as being virtuous by citing things that are post rationalisations.

It will also make people more dependent on the government which gives more power to politicians (those who will want to be elected will simply promise to increase the UBI) and we go further down the road to tyranny.

[Firadeoclus]

Unless you are arguing that taxation per se is unjust (which I'd disagree with), I don't see how you can argue that a UBI is wrong in principle, seeing that taxation of work is not the only way to finance a UBI.

Private property takes wealth out of the commons.