[nvoid]

I don't see anyone one here talking about this. It is already happening with the furlough scheme. Isn't that the experiment already run already? If the furlough scheme meant (some) people don't want to go back to work because they are already earning enough to live comfortably whilst doing nothing, then why would we want UBI?

Another problem is the risk of inflation. If everyone in the country has a certain amount of money coming in then shop-keepers are just going to raise their prices. Why wouldn't they? After a few years of this, we are back to square one and the only solution would be to keep raising the UBI.

[Turing_Machine]

> If the furlough scheme meant (some) people don't want to go back to work because they are already earning enough to live comfortably whilst doing nothing, then why would we want UBI?

The situations are not the same. At all.

With the current setup, the options are 1) don't work and receive $x, or 2) work and receive $x.

With UBI, the options would be 1) don't work and receive $x, or 2) work and receive $2x.

Would some people rather not work and get $x than work and get $2x? Certainly. But not all of them would. Not even close.

I'm not necessarily advocating for UBI, but your presentation of the situation is not accurate.

[PeterisP]

The furlough scheme is conceptually very different as the furlough system explicitly disincentivises going back to work as you lose the furlough money if you do so.