[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.