UBI support comes down to “do you support further wealth redistribution, from the more well off to the less well off”. Everyone gets the UBI, but the the more well off pay in through taxes more than the monthly UBI check, where the less well off pay in less than the monthly UBI check.
UBI is the roadmap to socialism.
It sure would be nice if I could get paid just to exist…
I am not sure what the future holds for us. If more jobs aren’t created as some or many jobs are taken over by automation, then it may become that there is less work than there is demand for working. Then something like UBI might be needed.
I am not confident on more jobs not being created though. We have technology that makes us much more productive than decades ago, and we still have lots of jobs.
Back when lumberjacks used 2-person saws, they said the chainsaw would take away their jobs.
Back when metal parts were milled by hand, they said the CNC machine would take away their jobs.
The labor market isn’t disappearing, its just evolving. While there is a legitimate concern that at some point, there won’t be enough jobs for people, I think we are quite a ways away from that point. To your point though, when we go full Wall-E mode - a UBI might be more reasonable to entertain.
1 Like
A UBI should allow more liquidity in the economy. Most money earned by the top 1-2% is saved, or locked up in various investments. If that money could instead be distributed as expendable income to lower class folks, theoretically the economy would benefit. The UBI would need to be such that lower class would benefit, middle class gets out same as they put in, and upper class are net donors.
Guess I’ll quit my job then. I’d rather be paid for doing nothing.
EDIT
Look, I don’t agree with how serious the wealth gap is, but I also cannot say that without being a hypocrite. I’m in the top 10% of earners and I see that it’s unfair the CEO of my company can pull a $40mil Christmas bonus while I get $800, so obviously I want more “fairness”.
But on the flip side of the coin, there are plenty of others who would look at what I’m making and say the exact same thing. So I’m a hypocrite. Therefore, I don’t agree with Universal Basic Income, because everyone really just wants money they didn’t earn, from pockets that aren’t theirs.
Planning to support your family on a few hundo per month? GLWT.
It would have to be low enough so that most would have to keep working.
1 Like
That is called “unemployment benefits” and is no more than $450/wk. So do we think the UBI idea is still relevant in that scope?
Not calling you out, this is meant to be a conversation between @Californiagrown, yourself, possibly @tlgains and anyone else who wishes to discuss it.
It’s more or less a monthly stimulus check paid for by taxes not by the fed making the money machine go Brrrrrrrr
1 Like
But the Fed LOVES making the
I know. I did post this above:
Honest question. Those investments help the economy. Those savings are loaned out to help the economy. It’s not like it’s setting under a mattress. Why does just giving it away to people do more for the economy?
Yep, we’re on the same page. Though, I wouldn’t frame it as “further” wealth distribution when really it would be returning to the pre-reagan wealth redistribution days.
A couple making $300k/year won’t miss $200/month from their savings/investment portfolio, but a couple making $100k/year would likely love to spend that money. And the economy should be the winner.
This is my issue. I’ll probably be able to work in whatever industry I choose, but if the evolution of the labor market means more tech-related jobs, I have ZERO interest in working in those areas and most of my peers entering the work force don’t either. When lumberjacks went from saw to chainsaws, they still got to be lumberjacks. Now everything feels like it’s all focusing on one industry.
1 Like
Real estate investment and stock markets typically benefit the well off, not the “working class”. So yes, the economy does better, but the already well off benefit far more. Rich you gets $70 while poor me gets $30, for the same “work”. It’s an exponential wealth multiplier, and that vastly favors those who already are wealthy.
Giving a cash infusion to folks who don’t already have an excess of income, will reinvigorate those local economies. And, inflation shouldn’t occur because the money supply didn’t increase.
I’d rather have the local grocer or hardware chain turn record profit than Chase bank, or Black rock, or Louis Vuitton.
I would rather we expand the earned income tax credit program before doing UBI. I like that it incentivizes productivity (or at least earning money). I’d like for states to have their own EITC programs to allow for adjustments to cost of living, and earnings.
The EITC is popular with most people. UBI is not. I think we could achieve similar results with a revised EITC (especially if states implement a state EITC).
Functionally, seems about the same as a UBI with common sense restrictions. But yeah, I’d support an EITC expansion.
UBI has the added benefit of helping people get up from rock bottom. Though it also can enable those at rock bottom. EITC doesn’t address that, right?
1 Like
You have to earn something to get the EITC. It is structured that earning more (still a pretty low amount) up to a point actually gets you more money, than if you earned less. So for example, earning $15K in a year might get you a $2500 credit, but $5K a year income would only get you $1000 (made these numbers up).
I would prefer it give larger tax credits to lower earners and decrease the more you earn, with certain restrictions regarding full-time/part time work, children, etc. High earners should not benefit more than low earners from the credit, IMO.
A flat UBI would accomplish the same thing, but be simpler to execute I think.
1 Like