I say things like "California is not a market-based economy right now"
instead of saying what non-market-based systems are called. It goes over better with Americans who are more universally triggered by certain words, instead of their definitions.
second example I've had surprising luck with over the past several years is that I tell people that big pharma doesn't want them to know that our body can build immunity by being exposed to weakened and dead versions of viruses. They're like "I knew it, natural remedies all along!", they are just allergic to the word vaccine and not the concept.
UBI doesn't say anything directly about where the money comes from. It's whatever plan you want it to be. (Or more charitably, a family of plans with a common feature.)
You can get any redistribution you like depending on how the offsetting taxes work (if any).
The basic tenet is the "universal basic income" part, the source of funding is not as clear cut. It could be funded by taxes, it could be funded by inflation, it could be funded by something else. Except funding it by inflation long term would probably not be too healthy for the economy as a whole.
"inflationary" is a very complicated concept. It definitely isn't caused by increases in a "quantity of money", as the latter concept doesn't really hold up to scrutiny in the first place.
Many libertarians (Milton Friedman among them) support a concept like this. It isn't a left/right thing. In fact, many liberals staunchly oppose UBI-type initiatives.
I'm a libertarian who supports UBI. Or I did until I realized my conception of it was different from most supporters.
Libertarians who support UBI think of it as replacing the other stuff. This is a wildly unpopular opinion on the left, who want everything else (welfare, college, childcare, healthcare, retirement) and UBI. Any libertarian non-corporatist supporter of UBI would not only have to win against his better-funded corporatist opponents, but would need to win with a "Let's get rid of social security for this other thing" pitch. You're more likely to find Bigfoot riding a unicorn.
> Libertarians who support UBI think of it as replacing the other stuff. This is a wildly unpopular opinion on the left
AFAICT, as a left-wing UBI supporter who sees it as replacing lots of other stuff, that depends which other stuff and how you plan on replacing it; phased (such as by counting a UBI introduced at a low rate and increased over time) displacement of means-tested welfare programs is not all unpopular on the left. Displacing means-tested healthcare (Medicaid/CHIP) has more mixed reactions (healthcare policy in general is contentious within the left). Displacing earned benefits (Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment insurance) is even more likely to be rejected (though in this case the general controversy over healthcare works in your favor with Medicare, as its probably the least universally toxic of these on the left.)
Displacing minimum wage with it also isn't too popular on the left.
Where you run into problems with some stuff that isn’t problematic on its own is when you don’t have a plan for a robust, mature UBI but you want a big-bang cold-turkey replacement of programs that what you do propose for UBI can’t come close to dollar-for-dollar substituting for for current recipients.
Maybe, but that's comparing real market dollars vs. government spending dollars. When you're not spending 20k on a hammer and 30k on a toilet seat, prices go down. Half of the people will waste their UBI money, yes, but the government is going to waste half the dollars they spend.
Ask your friends if they want to send a check to Bill Gates every month. You'll find that most people on the left don't actually believe in UBI. It's a great talking point because a politician says it and people imagine whatever they want (yours was a great breakdown of potential disagreement points). But the people around you are imagining very different things.
> Libertarians who support UBI think of it as replacing the other stuff. This is a wildly unpopular opinion on the left, who want everything else (welfare, college, childcare, healthcare, retirement) and UBI.
Really? I've never heard this before, and I'm pretty far to the left. Replacing all those other things with UBI sounds like a no-brainer. Why administer N different welfare systems when you can administer one? But I think the larger issue is that "the left" does not at all agree that UBI is a good thing, regardless of implementation.
I think objections to replacing (specifically) Social Security are political in nature, not policy-based. In that anyone (left or right) proposing to eliminate Social Security -- even if it's replaced by something better and more comprehensive -- would get voted out next election cycle. It's a very touchy subject, I think.
One exception I will make is healthcare, though: I don't think we should keep our current healthcare system and just expect that, instead of getting insurance through their employers, everyone is expected to pay for it individually with their UBI check. We need a major overhaul that gets rid of the private insurance system (or at least makes it the "not really needed, but rich people can get it if they want" type of thing) and removes all of the unnecessary graft in medical billing. (I get that this is also a touchy subject, so I certainly accept that M4A or whatever is not the One True System and that there are other options that might work just as well. But our current system is absolute garbage.)
You sound exactly like me before I started talking to people about the specifics. I've lost friends making that N different welfare systems argument.
Left and right are relative terms. If everyone else moves left of you, you're on the right. I think this has happened to you but you're in denial over it.
If you consider yourself a classical liberal then you're firmly on the right. That's where we are.
I say things like "California is not a market-based economy right now"
instead of saying what non-market-based systems are called. It goes over better with Americans who are more universally triggered by certain words, instead of their definitions.
second example I've had surprising luck with over the past several years is that I tell people that big pharma doesn't want them to know that our body can build immunity by being exposed to weakened and dead versions of viruses. They're like "I knew it, natural remedies all along!", they are just allergic to the word vaccine and not the concept.