UBI support Poll

[The Grand Nudger]

Any ubi we instituted would be tied to a social security number...so..no, like the other benefits that nuts worry about the foreign browns stealing, a flood of immigrants would not actually recieve ubi.  

Similarly, a ubi does not need "extra money" or for anyone to raid the pentagons budget or for us to stop investing outside of our borders.  Our domstic situation is intrinsically tied to our international activity.  If we want to reshore our industry or become isolationists that's it's own thing.  We don't need to deal with either issue to institute a ubi.

As for the hypothetical lack of motivation to be at the top of your game, I can't really speak to that.  Maybe there are people who aren't all that interested in what they do and the money truly is the only reason they try to excel.  I do that shit for free in my hobbies.  Even with a ubi, if you wanted to be rich, you'd still have that angle.  The main difference being that if you actually did want to be the best damned burger assembler in the country, you wouldn't have to eat cat food to make your life work on mcmoney.

People who needed it would have it. People who didn't would spend, invest, or save it. There really isn't much in the way of downsides unless you happen to be one of the rarified few slurping at the government trough while insisting that society would collapse if anyone else got a taste of that american pie. Think about the effects of paying out our damned tax returns on child poverty. It's not actually a huge lift to abolish poverty in the us, it's just that there's alot of money to be made by impoverishing people.

[h4ym4n]

I guess this would also give all the non documented illegal immigrants flooding the US a living wage working or not?

No questions asked?

That's a worry. And perhaps a fatal flaw. 

Though the basic idea is simple, it would have to be implemented in a careful way, and I don't know what all would be necessary to make it work. 

Perhaps limit it to those who legally attain citizenship.

But there's no question that in any big program like this, there's going to be cheats, and addicts and others who make poor use of it. The question is whether the number of such undesirables is sufficient to outweigh the benefits to the rest of us.

“Perhaps limit it to those who legally attain citizenship.“

So the US for example, the legal homeless will now be able to afford to purchase a house or pay rent and the people allowed in the country and aren’t citizens will take the homeless place?

Or they can work at what would be considered a slave rate?

Just trying to understand the logic

[Silver]

Where does all this extra money come from to pay nonworking people?

They already get paid via welfare. So, you know, reimplement.

[The Grand Nudger]

We worry about cheats and addicts as if they're the criminal scourge raiding our piggy banks. It aint so. Wage and tax theft, fraud, and abuse are greater issues by orders of magnitude than welfare theft, fraud, and abuse. Even more hilariously, welfare enforcement is top notch while successful cases against employers and corporate entities are relatively nonexistent and ineffective. The cheating welfare queen has never been anything other than an urban myth born of the need to dog whistle in slightly more genteel times than today. Even the individual issues this compound wedge are made up of don't pan out in reality. Tell me when a bunch of cokeheads crash the global markets and drug dealers in white coats create a national health crisis (all the while raking in record profits as they cheat of aforementioned taxes and wages) that a bunch of impoverished meth heads hanging out in a trailer on snap are the real problem...and do it with a straight face, if you can.

A ubi would do nothing to address those issues, the ones that are the source of immigrant labor working for "slave rates" in the first place.

[Belacqua]

That's a worry. And perhaps a fatal flaw. 

Though the basic idea is simple, it would have to be implemented in a careful way, and I don't know what all would be necessary to make it work. 

Perhaps limit it to those who legally attain citizenship.

But there's no question that in any big program like this, there's going to be cheats, and addicts and others who make poor use of it. The question is whether the number of such undesirables is sufficient to outweigh the benefits to the rest of us.

“Perhaps limit it to those who legally attain citizenship.“

So the US for example, the legal homeless will now be able to afford to purchase a house or pay rent and the people allowed in the country and aren’t citizens will take the homeless place?

Or they can work at what would be considered a slave rate?

Just trying to understand the logic

I don't know of any serious suggestions in the US so far that would answer the kind of policy questions you're asking me here. I don't know how far a possible US system would go, if one could even get off the ground. 

The theory is just that a guaranteed monthly payment, even if it's just money for utilities, provides some level of security and takes financial stress off of people. The hope is that they then have the personal wherewithal to live better -- whether this is more time for homework (instead of part-time work at McDonald's) or time to take care of themselves and not get sick. It's often been suggested that this is more efficient than welfare, and has downstream benefits in improving mental health, reduced crime, etc. 

You can read about various pilot programs so far, and a little bit about the results:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_...ome_pilots

I've read that when Covid started and government made one-time stimulus payments to people it had quite a positive effect on many lives. More than you might expect for the relatively small size of the payment. It keeps the economy moving and takes the edge off for people otherwise hurting.

[The Grand Nudger]

40%, 60%, and 76% reduction in child poverty in 2019, 2020, and 2021....then we stopped trying, and it went right back up to where it was. It cost a grand total of 3k dollars per child and was administered as a part of the child tax credit.

It's expensive to be poor. Ironically, more kids doesn't (or wouldn't) cost an additional 3k to see gains. The third and fourth (hypothetical) children are a wash. It takes little to no additional funds to raise more children after the two child hump. Ergo, a family of six would see similar benefits to a family of four at the same price point. Can't do it though, because we all know how kids are useless takers. They should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

[requiredfield]

The problem with ubi is that there's no incentive for financially successful people to support it.

[The Grand Nudger]

No?

I guess we can wave away all this hellscape america business what with roving gangs of shoplifting transpeople as completely disingenuous bullshit, then.

[Silver]

Being rich beyond normal means is incentive enough by itself. There needs be no extra special interests for the monetarily super-abled.

[requiredfield]

Being rich beyond normal means is incentive enough by itself. There needs be no extra special interests for the monetarily super-abled.

More like super motivated. You sound like some weird, lazy commie.