Try the political quiz

13.7k Replies

@9TSL3MLWomen’s Equality from Tennessee answered…6 days

Yes, if that person cannot afford basic living supplies and actually attempts to get a job

@9TSCN6HAmerican Solidarity from California answered…6 days

Yes, but only a small amount. Not enough to live comfortably on without working.

@9TM6N6FTranshumanist from Texas answered…2wks

Yes, everyone should received an income to cover basic necessities including food and housing as long as they keep a job and work full time.

@9TJZGPMWomen’s Equality from New York answered…2wks

If minimum wage was a live-able wage, then in theory this program would not be needed

@9THX3QZSocialistfrom Vermont  answered…3wks

I think it should be assessed by financial situation. Those in need should receive enough money to live comfortably .

@9TWJ8L5Peace and Freedom from New York answered…1 day

It's difficult to say, I think it promotes laziness. But if the money could come from the rich or the military budget, maybe some form of this could be implemented.

@9TWJ5PBTranshumanist from Ohio answered…1 day

@9TWCSJYPeace and Freedom from Massachusetts answered…2 days

Not if the UBI system cuts funding from Social Security and other related programs

@9TWCJQ5Women’s Equality from Minnesota answered…2 days

@9TVTTNSTranshumanist from Vermont answered…2 days

Yes, but only if the citizen is working or actively looking for a job.

@9TVHRJ6Democratfrom Maine  answered…3 days

In the future when jobs are automated yes, but right now no.

@9TTW33WDemocrat from New York answered…4 days

Yes, people who that are without a job and cannot afford to live without this income should receive money, but those that are not hindered from doing work should not receive any money from the government.

@9TTTRLHAmerican Solidarity from Iowa answered…4 days

yes but only to people under a certain livable income. rich people don't need this

@9TTTLV2Veteran from West Virginia answered…4 days

@9TTSXH8Constitution from Ohio answered…4 days

I think they should but i also think they shouldn’t, it just depends on how much money we receive and how often we get the money

@9TTN27FConstitution from Minnesota answered…4 days

@9TRRVYDWomen’s Equality from Arizona answered…1wk

I support it and it helps people with low income or even in poverty but in the wrong hands it can be used for drugs and other bad things

@9THPYBZWomen’s Equality from Illinois answered…3wks

Depends, I think there could be a good basic salary given to workers that insure they can buy food/rent/bills etc, but shouldnt be enough so they dont have to have a job/work hard

@9TH5CGFTranshumanist from California answered…3wks

Yes but first we need to adjust the budget and make sure we can afford it

@9TH3TN5Republican from Wisconsin answered…3wks

Only during times of national poverty should it be implemented.

@9TGZZ87Working Family from Louisiana answered…3wks

No, but I do believe we should make a large federal program to help in regards to home and food situations for poorer and more unfortunate individuals.

@9TGXQGJDemocrat from Maryland answered…3wks

See if it was effective in other countries or try it out but definitely a little wary of it.

@9TGJS36Women’s Equalityfrom Guam  answered…3wks

Yes, but only with proof of documented citizenship in the country

@9TGF7THIndependent from Missouri answered…3wks

Maybe someday if we are in a surplus or excess economic position.

@9TG948YSocialist from Idaho answered…3wks

Yes, it should be enough to cover food, but people need to work to keep running things, so it should not cover all basic necessities.

@9TFC99GIndependent from Oregon answered…3wks

No, people should have to contribute to society to get these basic needs

@9TF3XWPWomen’s Equality from Utah answered…3wks

Yes, but it should be monitored like the food stamps system.

@9TDYLK3Green from West Virginia answered…3wks

Only in temporary fashion during serious economic crises, like the COVID-19 pandemic; the social safety net needs strengthened instead

@9TDYJ6SConstitution from New York answered…3wks

@9TDC7HXPeace and Freedom from New York answered…4wks

Yes, but we should not cut basic social welfare programs to fund it

@9TDBK2MGreen from Illinois answered…4wks

@9TD9KBFSocialist from Texas answered…4wks

yes we should and also have your salary as well so have both your own salary and the universal basic income

@9TCXV6XSocialist from Texas answered…4wks

No, A Socialist Society in general would do the Job of UBI better than UBI

@9TCV2FCConstitution from Idaho answered…4wks

universal basic income program is needed but there should be more guards set in place and there needs to be more encouragement for people to become more self sufficient.

@9TCMQDQWomen’s Equality from Utah answered…4wks

People should apply to get the serves and see if you are eligible of getting the treatment.

@9TCBZ6CPeace and Freedom from Maryland answered…4wks

Corporate welfare must end. Tax company profits to 1950 levels and provide tax breaks to companies that pay a living wage.

@9TBQKP4Working Family from Georgia answered…4wks

Depends on the situation of people and the economy, but I don't believe everyone should just get one without a reason.

@9TBKR9FPeace and Freedom from Ohio answered…4wks

It depends if the person works or not. I’d say instead if that, why not offer them a job?

@9T9PL3DPeace and Freedom from North Carolina answered…4wks

This might help some afford basic needs, but it will encourage financial dependency on the government. It will also harm the work force. But if we didn't live in a capitalist society then this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

@9T9LK29Veteran from Oklahoma answered…4wks

@9T9JNWFSocialist from Kentucky answered…4wks

yes everyone should receive money to cover basic necessities like food and housing. but we should also make feminine products free


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...