Topic: Ubi usa unversal basic income (Read 99 times)

Which brings us back to something that we have known for a very long time, and that is that incentives matter, if you pay people for not working while those that work have to pay for themselves and those that do not work then what is exactly going to motivate them to keep working?

Now those that earn way more than the average may still have a motivation to do so as they want a better lifestyle, but those that earn an amount of money close to those that do not work will see that it makes no sense for them to keep working and they will quit and join the non-working population, this will force the government to increase taxes or print more money, which will eventually result on more people quitting their jobs and aggravating the problem, so while the dreams of being able to sustain yourself by doing nothing could seem to work in theory, if we actually tried that for real we will soon realize that it does not work.

But you're assuming that the UBI is set at a level that disincentivises work. The UBI can be set at any level. What if your neighbour who just stays at home all day makes much less than you? That's still possible with a UBI, and I'd argue this is the more likely scenario.




I think it's just a question of degree, and the level at which the UBI is set. Yes, if taken too far it would be a bad idea, but that's true of anything. At the other end of the scale, a very low UBI could simply be viewed as a more efficient and less wasteful implementation of the welfare system, which most people (whether on the left or the right) would probably think is a good idea.

The problem with this is, is that who is going to pay for it. Obviously it’s going to be the people who are currently working. And how do you think you will feel when you need to get up and work from 9 to 5 while your neighbor next door just stays at home all day and makes slightly less than you. Obviously it’s not fair and everybody would quit working to do that, I just don’t think this would work.

What needs to happen is that many employers like McDonalds and Walmart need to pay fair wages for anyone who isn’t a teenager. Most teenagers can make min wage because they live with their parents. Most adults can’t. So there needs to be a different pay scale based on age.

The trend of UBI was covered by nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman who said: "we have a system which taxes work, to subsidize non work". This is the main point of contention with programs like UBI.

Implemented in moderate terms programs like UBI can be efficiently and effectively maintained. Countries like denmark are known for subsidizing UBI programs to pay students $1,000 monthly stipends and benefits. They can do this successfully without resorting to extreme measures, due to them being small and sparsely populated nordic regions. There is a question of whether these programs can scale.

In certain extreme cases, programs like UBI can become dangerous. Taxing work to extremes to subsidize extreme degrees of non work can reach a point of unsustainability.

Free money sounds great unless you see the dark side of it. Look at Venezuela today and try to research why they have ended up in hyper inflation and what has happened in the background. When everything becomes free, people will stop working and that leads to a non functional nation. Not immediately but slowly!

Universal Basic Income is good for short term to increase demand in the market but can't be a long term solution.

UBI is a great idea, but is often misunderstood. It's simply not true that new money has to come from somewhere, or that everyone's taxes will go up. There is no need for new money to fund a UBI, it is self-funding. It can be considered (simplistically) as being similar to a modification of tax bandings.

If you are an average earner, then under UBI you would expect to receive around the same total amount of money each month. You'd get your guaranteed minimum UBI from the state, which of course forms part of your income.

Some sample figures* to illustrate the point:

You earn $3k per month under the current system. You get your first $1k per month tax-free, then pay 20% on the next $1k, then 40% on the next $1k... so you get $3k, and pay (1000*.20 + 1000*.40) = $600 tax, so keep $2400 after tax.

Under UBI, you get a guaranteed UBI of $1k per month. You still earn $3k per month, so you now receive $4k in total before tax. You still get your first $1k tax-free (the UBI), your next $1k is taxed at 40%, your next $1k at 50%, your next $1k at 60%... you pay (1000*0.40 + 1000*0.50 + 1000*0.60) = $1500 tax, so get to keep $4000 - $1500 = $2500 after tax.

Your income has increased slightly, because everyone gets a UBI, so the state no longer has to use your taxes to fund the welfare system.
You will also note that someone on an ultra-low income of $1k per month kept $1k under the current system, but ($2k - $1k*0.40) = $1.6k under the UBI system, and is much better off.

Obviously a bit of a simplification, but that's the basics of how it would work.





* Please don't try to argue that $3k is less/more than average income. I chose this amount simply because it is easier to demonstrate the principle.

You will need to give more context to your proposal. Universal Basic Income would be a solution to what exactly; Difficult life and crime?
On paper, UBI could potentially solve all these issues and create a better society where everyone has funds to fall back to, which would give them a structure to build on, but is it sustainable as a long term solution? I do not think so.

The funds to support such a scheme has to come from somewhere and the likely source is the coffers of tax payers. Most would not agree with increases in taxes.
Another source, although very unlikely, is money printers.
During the start of the covid pandemic the government injected lots of cash into circulation through stimulus checks which moslt came from printers; This wod have a catastrophic effect on the economy and sky rocket inflation.

---

While UBI is potentially a positive move, it is not sustainable in my opinion.

Universal basic income is a standing solution for lots of families in the united states and can also curb the case of crimes because lots of families will benefit and get this income either monthly drifting their minds from criminal acts to source funds except for those with unsatisfying desires. But I see UBI as a lasting solution

but this cannot be used as a long term solution,,, because if so society will continue to depend on assistance from the government .. and also this will not have a significant impact on reducing the number of crime in America

Usa only solution is ubi yes universal basic income.
It will make also life safer not so much crimes.