[wrs]

You would have the option to do what they’re doing if you prefer. You just wouldn’t have as much disposable income.

Why are you pay for other people to use the roads or have their fires put out or have health care? Because society is more pleasant overall if everyone can assume a baseline availability for those things.

[motorest]

> You would have the option to do what they’re doing if you prefer. You just wouldn’t have as much disposable income.

That's fantastic. So let's build upon your personal belief, and as the system is universal then your recommendation is extended to everyone subscribing to the service.

Now please explain how you expect to finance an income redistribution scheme where all participants do not contribute back and instead only expect to consume from it.

[ownagefool]

I think the overriding idea is a UBI would only result in a modest living and luxury would cost more.

That's where many of the practical issues come in of course.

I'm not going to personally argue they're not solvable, but many people will argue the requirements of basic shelter and sustenance being far higher than what they actually are, and in our current system, the landlords would take the cash anyways.

Of course, if we all end up jobless due to robotics and AI enhancement, which again isn't something that's necessarily going to happen, UBI or similar might be the only positive path out of that mess.

[_DeadFred_]

VCs fund a lot of companies, even though they only get a return on a few. The government routinely gives out subsidies to industries they want to encourage, knowing that only a few that receive the subsidies will generate a return. This isn't a novel/unworkable concept, a lot of our economy is currently based off of it actual, you just don't like it.

Some people think if you fund people's ability to live, so that they aren't killing themselves going to multiple jobs, not sleeping, not raising their kids, remove fears like 'insurance is tied to this job so I can't leave it', etc, you will encourage an economic renaissance, just like VC funding has created a renaissance for the pocketbooks of VC funders.

[just_some_guy_2]

Denmark already have a limited form of the UBI when seen in that light. The state offers free education and a monthly "basic income" for people studying for a degree, for up to five years.

Sure, some people waste it. Some are just passive consumers, even shopping around between multiple educations without ever completing a degree. Some drop out half-way. Some get impractical degrees with few real job opportunities.

But enough people go on to become doctors and engineers and software developers and so on, and then have long careers that ultimately pays back the venture capital to the state, in the form of taxes. Most also work a side-job while studying to supplement the "basic income" stipend.

I don't personally believe that the majority of people will become unproductive consumers with an UBI. I think that societal pressure to contribute, the wish to enjoy luxuries, and to get status is enough for the majority to still work. I think that the added safety net of the UBI will also allow more people to take a risk on a dream, and perhaps make it big in art, in inventing new stuff, in science or in politics. And, as in VC investments, the few big hits will hopefully pay for the failures.

[motorest]

> Denmark already have a limited form of the UBI when seen in that light. The state offers free education and a monthly "basic income" for people studying for a degree, for up to five years.

Your example has absolutely nothing to do with UBI, other than the fact that a small minority gets paid a stipend. It's not universal as it's conditionally granted only to a very small subset of society (students) throughout a limited time (5 years). At best it's another social safety net that is granted to people who would otherwise have no access to higher education.

Yet, in your example you already acknowledge that even when granted to a very specific subset of society which is motivated and mobilized to seize that opportunity to fund personal growth, it is also abused in ways that go exactly against it's purpose as it provides perverse incentives that attack equity at it's core.

> I don't personally believe that the majority of people will become unproductive consumers with an UBI. I think that societal pressure to contribute, the wish to enjoy luxuries, and to get status is enough for the majority to still work.

I'm afraid your personal hopes are misguided and based only on wishful thinking. There are plenty of examples in areas such as social housing where benefits are linked with immunity to "societal pressure to contribute". Providing a resource unconditionally represents a clear incentive to eliminate whatever incentives there are to secure it.

[just_some_guy_2]

> I'm afraid your personal hopes are misguided and based only on wishful thinking

Oh, I knew somebody would go there. My personal hopes are at least as valid as the blanket statement that everybody will automatically fall to the lowest denominator and contribute as little as possible given the chance. I'm just honest enough to prefix my predictions with "I believe."

And of course the Danish education stipend is not a real UBI. Nobody has implemented a real ubiquitous and unlimited UBI. But there have been trials, like the one in Finland involving 2000 people over two years. Compared to that, I think the Danish "trial" may be closer to the real thing. It has run since 1970 and involves all students of higher education in the country in that entire time frame.

If I was a researcher trying to figure out what happens if you give a group of people a monthly stipend with very few requirements and no stipulations about how the money are going to be used, then I at least would regard that as valid data.

[motorest]

> VCs fund a lot of companies, even though they only get a return on a few.

You're not talking about long-shot bets in a system where everyone is expected to produce. You're talking about income redistribution schemes. This means today's salary is used to finance today's benefits. Please explain who do you expect to foot the bill when the system pressures those who sustain it to abandon that and instead add to the pool of consumers.

[_DeadFred_]

No, I am talking about investing, not bets, in every person, improving their lot, which in turn will improve society's productivity. If I go from watering 10% of my garden to 100%, I get better returns. A mom working 2 horrible jobs with varying hours can not raise a healthy new member of society. Freeing her to do so lifts ALL of society. There are lots of factors that will improve. People no longer just barely hanging on can start re-investing in themselves, their ideas, their skills. People not afraid if their idea fails will start new businesses. If anything business and capital flow will increase and flourish.

[WorldMaker]

A lot of the "magic" of UBI ideas is the time value of money and a lot of the same fundamental concepts as other forms of passive income. One way to think of it is your Government making a massive investment in "short term loans": your UBI payment is a loan of $X on April 16th with an expectation to pay Y% of $X back on April 15th of the following year (as the taxes you owe on the income you made that year). If Y% is greater than or equal to 100% it is exactly a loan, with interest. If Y% is less than 100% it is a government subsidized loan. A lot of the debate inside UBI discussion is what is the most effective Y%, and a lot of the beliefs about UBI is that you can do it with a surprisingly small Y% for among the same reasons that the Federal Reserve can give 0% loans to most banks. If they can give such favorable terms to short term loans to banks, why can't they give that to average citizens? When you look at all the complex deductions in the existing tax code as existing loans with favorable percent and add them together, that also drops your Y% and potentially simplifies things. (Instead of deducting lots of individual line items, you shift Y% individually, the terms of your personal annual loan agreement. Or you can leave Y% consistent and adjust $X up to replace deductions with larger loans.)

If "everyone" lives on $X - Y% * $X for an entire year the loans are fully repaid each year and the government isn't "losing money" on its "loan terms" and is meeting the subsidies people expect from their government. That's not a "losing" situation. (It's not a likely scenario either, because at least some people are always going to want more than $X - Y% * $X dollars a year for their lifestyle or their dreams or their investments or their philanthropy or their vices.)

(ETA: It's also not directly an assumption in every form of UBI that Y% is less than 100%. There are UBI schools of thought that because of the time value of money, some charged interest is not only possible, but potentially a good idea as an incentive to invest the UBI payment in more than just mortgage/rent/lifestyle, but also something that does appreciate you with interest, such as the opportunity cost of accepting a job or a basic savings account. I tend towards the Y% <= 100% feelings, but I understand the Y% > 100% crowd.)

[eschaton]

The above poster is basically just repeating libertarian “free market cannot fail” talking points, and probably feels terribly aggrieved that they have to pay for other people to use the roads or have their fires put out or have health care too.

In other words, they’ve outed themselves as a Randroid and their opinion on matters of economics and public policy is worth just as much as Ayn Rand’s: Nothing, or even less.