[mandmandam]

As if current economic structures don’t already entrench powerful players? Lol.

CBI, as outlined in the paper, is funded through monetary contraction; meaning it does not introduce traditional taxation distortions or increase government control over industry.

If anything, UBI/CBI reduces dependence on hierarchical employment structures by providing individuals with a baseline income. This allows more freedom to reject exploitative labor conditions.

Historical evidence suggests that when people receive unconditional income (eg, Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend), entrepreneurial activity and workforce participation generally increase.

> institutionalizes the UBI recipients and forever casts their offspring into those economic roles

Poverty traps generally result from means-tested welfare programs, not unconditional income.

Many existing welfare programs disincentivize work because earning more means losing benefits. CBI is not means-tested, so earning more does not reduce benefits. If anything, it provides a safety net that makes risk-taking easier.

Pilot programs in Finland, Canada, and the U.S. show that UBI does not significantly reduce employment. In Kenya, cash transfers increased education rates and business activity among recipients, breaking generational poverty cycles.

If you want to declare things like "every opinion but mine is short sighted", it's generally best practice to demonstrate that you understand the relevant arguments and data.

[bsenftner]

It does not matter how bad the current economic structures are, they have a path out. "Trickle down economics" sounded good at the time too, and now it is recognized as a farce. UBI is a bigger farce. There are at least two major issues with UBI:

1) Any system that does not provide an upward ladder to the economic top, despite being better at the bottom, is not better in whole and is actually negative for the species as a whole. Hope and the ability to better one's situation is essential. UBI and it's variants institutionalize economic positions, and that destroys hope short of an overthrowing revolution.

2) UBI will exist in our social human Capitalistic world where any and all expenditures are eyed for reduction. Those on UBI (or what ever name it ends up having) will observe a gradual reduction of their UBI and a gradual criminalization of their economic parasitism. This is human culture. This reduction of the "economic waste" that is UBI is inevitable. Humans do not give gifts for any lasting duration without oversized returns.

Just look at the top posts: they ask "is this the best use of our tax dollars?" as in once UBI is active, such attitudes will immediately seek to reduce it.

[542354234235]

To point 1, how does receiving, say, $1,000 a month remove hope and prevent bettering oneself? Anyone receiving UBI can still get a job to get additional money. Anyone already working is still receiving their salary. I would not stop trying to promote and make more money, let alone quit my job because I was receiving an extra grand a month. Just like suddenly not having to pay for healthcare and having that extra money in my pocket wouldn’t disincentivize me.

On point 2, the idea that UBI is parasitism and corporate handouts are not is ridiculous. UBI is basically the same as a stock dividend paid to shareholders, where everyone owns one “share” of the country, with all of its natural resources, infrastructure, trade, etc (something literally done in Alaska already with oil revenue). Taxes already go to things an individual will not personally use or directly benefit from, but the aggregate is a benefit to all. The highway system for example, where any individual strip of road may or may not “make more” than it costs, but the system of transit benefits everyone. Eliminating (relative) extreme poverty, and all of its criminal, health, productivity loss ills that come with it, while also reducing the massive cost to manage, check, and enforce means tested assistance is a net benefit.

[bsenftner]

People receiving UBI will have any additional income they generate deducted from UBI. This is human nature.

I do not personally feel that people receiving financial aid is parasitism, but I do understand that is what it will be called by it's opponents, and they have the power to frame public opinion far more than the proponents of UBI.

I do not see the points advocating UBI realistically addressing how every day dirty human politics will distort the reasoning and create emotional negatives that will drive public opinion about those on UBI. I believe UBI would be great in a more mature civilization that we do not have. Also realize that UBI removes economic power from those on UBI; if the economic powers can, UBI will not be issued in normal currency, it will be credits towards only certain approved things. If the economic powers can, those on UBI will lose their vote, or be regulated back to 3/5th of a vote. Do not underestimate what happens when one group gives up power to another. It is never pretty.

[DonaldFisk]

> People receiving UBI will have any additional income they generate deducted from UBI. This is human nature.

Then it isn't UBI. By definition, you get exactly the same amount as everybody else, regardless of their income from whatever source. This means that you're always better off if you take a job.

[bsenftner]

But, some people are more equal than others, somehow, always. There's always more important someone calling the shots, for their betterment first. You speak as if you don't live in this same human civilization, where justice is merely a nice idea.

[542354234235]

>People receiving UBI will have any additional income they generate deducted from UBI. This is human nature.

Putting “this is human nature” as the full stop explanation tells me nothing and convinces me of nothing. How is Alaska’s UBI deducted based on income? That just isn’t how UBI works and not what UBI is. Same with your statement that it will be for “only certain approved things” which is not UBI, but means tested assistance, which as I said, comes with huge monetary waste in paying people to define what is “approved”, developing mechanisms on how it will be tracked, on businesses to implement systems, and on people to monitor compliance.

UBI is basically a tax credit. If you are poor enough that you pay less taxes than the UBI, you get a tax rebate. If you pay more, you get the money in the form of less tax obligation. The US already spends $1.101 trillion on welfare programs, a significant portion of that is wasted in the massive bureaucracy needed to oversee means tested assistance. If it was a simple tax credit with no overhead, that would be over $4,000 per adult per year.

“those on UBI” shows that you are not talking about UBI, because UBI is universal. Elon Musk would get UBI and pay $12,000 less on his taxes, and the single mother working at McDonalds would also pay $12,000 less on her taxes, likely resulting in a tax rebate check. To reiterate, it is literally just a dividend paid for being a “shareholder” of the company that is the United Sates (or whatever other country).

[bsenftner]

The math does not work for UBI to exist at all, and all I see are wishful unrealistic thinking that might work in a more mature civilization we do not live within.

[542354234235]

All I see is you making sweeping claims no justification or any information, data, or anything at all to back it up. Saying "The math doesn't work" when we literally could convert current welfare to $4 grand a year for every American adult as UBI means you are just flat out wrong.

[svardilfari]

Because the majority of opinion holders are refusing to read and internalize the parent article. You're just echoing sentiments that people make regarding their opinion on typical welfare - which your parent comment already addressed completely.

Either TRY and refute those comments or don't comment at all.

[bsenftner]

I read the article. It's a compromise of UBI. The start of the plethora of confusion diluting the concept, part of the eventual destruction of the idea.