this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
212 points (100.0% liked)

Futurology

40 readers
1 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] demonquark@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which is in line with most other UBI experiments. How many more experiments do we need until politicians just acknowledge that this is good policy and we need to start implementing it?

[–] Hexagon@feddit.it 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I'm not against it, but where would the money come from?

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Who cares? Did you not see how it was cheaper than what we're currently doing because fewer people wind up in hospitals and prisons?

Where does the more money we are currently spending come from?

[–] centof@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would you ask that if it came to the defense budget?

I would rather the government spent its money on directly helping citizens rather than only giving it to the military industrial complex.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The defense budget doesn't purport to be a replacement for capitalism.

[–] centof@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Neither does a UBI. It merely claims to help people improve their life.

You're the one bringing capitalism into this.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then in what sense is it "universal"?

[–] centof@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

A UBI is universal in the sense that it applies without a means test or a need to work. Traditional social welfare programs have many overly restrictive policies that limit who is eligible. This results in only about ~25% of those who are eligible actually using those programs.

If you are arguing that the linked article is not an example of a UBI, you would be correct as it is a targeted basic income.

[–] Scary_le_Poo 1 points 1 year ago

It's universal in that everyone receives it.

[–] Jesus_666@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

Part of it comes from removing existing social support schemes that UBI supplants. Not only can you reallocate those funds, the simplified ruleset should also reduce bureaucratic overhead, which can also go towards funding UBI.

Will that cover all of the additional expenses? Probably not. But it's a start, at least.

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Where would it go?

Partially this is a Cotton Eye Joe reference, but mostly pointing out that people spend money. Spent money is taxed. Huuzah.

Also money isn't real. You can just print the stuff.
The only issue is the productive capacity of the society doing it.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Rolling back trump’s $2 Trillion tax cuts for the rich and corporations would be a great start. From there, increase taxes on both groups substantially. They will still be rich and still be making record profits, but we will gain social safety nets such as UBI in the process.

Alternatively, we could generate funding for this the same way we did to fund over 20 years of military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It could come from the same place we get the funds for subsidizing fossil fuel companies. It could even come from the very same money printers we used to give free PPP loans to “businesses” during the height of the pandemic.

The point being, if it’s good policy, a healthy functioning government does it, and doesn’t waste time asking questions about how we pay for things. Taxes. The answer is always taxes, it’s literally called the Internal Revenue Service.

load more comments (1 replies)