[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.

[teekert]

It's not altruism, I'm being perfectly rationally selfish, I just prefer to help those in need and give the bad people money to stay away from me while not wasting any time and money to make the distinction.

[uk_programmer]

I love how people can post-rationalise that right is wrong. It is very clever, but you are being dishonest with yourself.

It is simply wrong to take from others who work to those who cannot be bothered to work. Everything you do afterwards is trying rationalise your desire for UBI because you believe it to be virtuous.

[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.

[Spearchucker]

Demonstrate that you're open to another way and I'll happily debate this. For example saying that the employed would be taxed because it's easy is based on what, exactly? There are economic models that support a variety of liberal crackpot and old school approaches plus everything in between. There MUST be a better alternative to what we have today.

[uk_programmer]

Why do I have to demonstrate anything? I've made my argument and nobody has refuted anything I've said. They've just kept on with their post-hoc rationalisations. Tell me why it is okay to take from those that do work and fund those that won't?

> There are economic models that support a variety of liberal crackpot and old school approaches plus everything in between.

More economic models. That have that never work. When are people going to learn that you cannot make wealth out of thin air?

> There MUST be a better alternative to what we have today.

There is. But what I consider better alternatives are very different from what you would consider better alternatives and you definitely won't like what I would propose.