A Universal Basic Income program is social security program where all citizens of a country receive a regular, unconditional sum of money from the government. The funding for Universal Basic Income comes from taxation and government owned entities including income from endowments, real estate and natural resources. Several countries, including Finland, India and Brazil, have experimented with a UBI system but have not implemented a permanent program. The longest running UBI system in the world is the Alaska Permanent Fund in the U.S. state of Alaska. In the Alaska Permanent Fund each indivi…
Read moreNarrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No
@9R3ZQR3 12mos12MO
Universal Basic Income allows all people, especially those with a lower income, to provide for the bare necessities without relying on their income. The notion that UBI would cause inflation is a myth, as UBI could be paid for with increased taxes on the rich or corporations. If UBI did cause slight inflation, it would only affect the 1% most wealthy, as UBI would overcompensate any inflation by filling the bank accounts of 99% of Americans.
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican5mos5MO
Increase taxes on the rich to support a universal income for the poor? That sounds like communism to me, you're basically saying we should take money from the rich to give to the poor.
@9F7ZYX72yrs2Y
Universal basic income provides an opportunity for people to pursue fulfilling work and to spend more time and energy doing things to improve their lives, their communities, and the world. As more and more jobs are lost to technology and AI, we need a serious solution that will strengthen the economy and help people take steps to improve their lives and do work they love. UBI is a humanizing social safety net that doesn't depend on government paternalism or devolve into "workfare." It gives people the freedom and opportunity to pursue the life they want and to thrive in ways… Read more
@B4FZMWD 3mos3MO
We alread spend trillions annually (Most recent data: $1.8 T between local and federal govt in 2023) on programs to address poverty, and the rate has been mostly consistent for the past 100 years (See Poverty by America by Matthew Desmond). A UBI could be a more efficent way to reallocate those same resources through a program that has been time and time again demonstrated at alleviateing the
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes
@9FSM4GJ2yrs2Y
The average cost of living right now in the United States is $2500-$3500 per month, the poverty increase rate has gone up by %4 in just two years. Universal Basic Income will provide that safety net if monthly income does not suffice the cost of living.
@9K66N8HIndependent 1yr1Y
With a Universal Basic Income would give the people more of an incentive to work, reduce poverty, reduce the wage gap, as well as declining the amount of income discrimination.
@B58FX2W2mos2MO
A study done in Canada in 1972 caused a 8.5% reduction in hospitalization rates mainly due to less alcohol related events. It resulted in the fact that in 1976 all students in the town the study was conducted all students eligible to signed up to finish school.
@9QZZK2912mos12MO
Companies have less and less need for employees, and more and more jobs are becoming busy work. Companies are putting up false job postings to pretend their growing. As jobs become more and more automated, there will be less need for employees, leading to fewer jobs. If jobs are the only source of income a lack of them will leave many people out of the economy entirely. With company profits divorce of employees you will have a few people with all the wealth. Without a UBI to distribute wealth this will inevitably lead to corporate feudalism.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities including food and housing
@B3VGV2T 2mos2MO
Universal Basic Income (UBI) could significantly reduce poverty and inequality while boosting economic activity. By providing a guaranteed income floor, UBI could improve health outcomes, increase employment, and support entrepreneurship.
Data and Statistics to Support UBI:
Poverty Reduction:
A UBI could effectively eliminate poverty. A 2020 study in Brazil showed that a pandemic relief program with a monthly income of $110 (600 reais) per month to 25% of the population significantly reduced the poverty rate.
Improved Health:
Studies have shown that UBI recipients report better physical and… Read more
@B59XH582mos2MO
This is socialism and would ruin the free market. As well as decrease the incentive to make money and grow the economy.
@B59V8NF2mos2MO
Very few people are truly deserving of such assistance from the government. Majority of the current people have the ability to not require even their current funding needs, if they made smarter choices, or couldn't rely on the government.
I agree. If the state is gonna exist i would rather it exist mainly just to fund the pubic rather than as a enforcer of authority
@7FDN267Libertarian 2yrs2Y
Those who are able and refuse to work actively limit the ability of the Government to provide financial assistance to those who actually need it.
@9GTNTG8Republican2yrs2Y
I believe that many people in the united states take advantage of financial aid. I do believe in some instances that financial aid is useful, but since so many people take advantage of it then I believe it needs to be limited. it is not fair for people to choose not to work and live off of financial aid.
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican5mos5MO
Some people do need financial aid, but a lot of people are just choosing to live off of financial aid and not get a job.
@Name-IrrelevantConstitution 2yrs2Y
Those depending on welfare are already being manipulated every election season. "Vote for me or the other guy will take your benefits away." We don't need an entire society at the mercy of the state, who can threaten to take that income away whenever we step out of line.
@9GN56PS 2yrs2Y
We all start at $0 currently in this world. But if we started at the living wage, we wouldn’t have to worry about how we can eat, live, or survive. It’s like a Chuck E-Cheez, give people tokens to participate and you will see an explosion in involvement and innovation of new businesses that benefit us all rather than financial struggle.
@9G4GJQV2yrs2Y
Universal basic income is unjust, for it is helping some but placing the burdens on others, it is not fair for one to pay for another without the consent of the payer.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No, this will encourage people not to work and harm economic growth
@7FDN267Libertarian 2yrs2Y
As with everything in physics, humans tend toward the lowest energy state. With this in mind, lazy people who do not have to work will choose not to.
@9GT472M2yrs2Y
Not everyone that is unemployed is 'lazy'. Many unemployed people may have physical or mental disabilities that keep them from being able to work. A Universal Basic Income will help people who are in bad situations survive. If a person is just 'lazy' a Universal Basic Income will only help them a little, they will most likely get a job anyway to help support themselves further.
@9FSM4GJ2yrs2Y
Having a Universal Basic Income will not encourage people not the work, but will rather provide them with a safety net. Universal Basic Income will not cover the whole cost of living, as the economy and cost of living is on an increase, so either way you could not live off a Universal Basic Income, but rather give everyone a place to start.
@9GS2H7Z2yrs2Y
EVERY SINGLE STUDY shows that work attendance does not decrease, people are less depressed and less anxious and they are happier and less stress because they don't have to worry about being able to pay for rent or putting food on the table.
@9FPZVRB2yrs2Y
It will help people to survive but it won't encourage people not to work if amount of paid money will be low enough.
@8HCHSRR5yrs5Y
Yes, but only if the home meets certain requirements.
@9HB5MKV2yrs2Y
Yes, but institute it gradually over a set transition period to prevent mass disruption. Start with state-based pilot programs like Alaska’s. Eventually, it should replace our current welfare system.
@8SH3RLG4yrs4Y
No, because it gives the government control
@button_down_royalty_ 3yrs3Y
This is true and a concern for me. However I think the people should be given plenty of say as they are the ones who need it. I have some (in serious need of work) ideas though.
@8LJM2HB5yrs5Y
Yes, for all minors, elders (65+), pregnant women, new mothers, people with physical or mental issues, and students until they make a livable wage where they can support themselves.
@92R5X3N3yrs3Y
Yes, but only during times of Recession
@9G9C49K2yrs2Y
Yes, but institute it gradually to prevent mass disruption, starting with state-based pilot programs such as Alaska’s. It should eventually replace our current welfare system
Deleted2yrs2Y
Yes, but only in the form of a social dividend under a market socialist economy
@9D6QJCZ2yrs2Y
I feel as though if there were a universal income program, the people who use their money for stuff to not help them physically and mentally, could somewhat destabilize the economy.
That's a valid concern. For instance, if a significant number of people were to use their basic income to fuel unhealthy habits, like substance abuse, it might increase public health costs, which could indirectly affect the economy. However, isn't it also possible that with financial stability, people might make better choices, leading to positive societal changes? What are your thoughts on this?
@93YMVXF3yrs3Y
Yes, but as a welfare replacement.
@9DZ3S5N2yrs2Y
No, have a National Job Program instead
@8M7PYD55yrs5Y
Yes but only for low income individuals
@9BZYMHF2yrs2Y
No, have a job guarantee instead
@9JRHG441yr1Y
No, on the basis that housing, medicine, and basic necessities should not be privatized or priced according to government. Instead we should socialize these necessities as making money on things necessary for life in immoral.
@9GMYJS42yrs2Y
it is good for the people who need help off their feet mut for lazy people they will just not want to work
@9GDMX4S2yrs2Y
Yes, but institute it gradually to prevent mass disruption, perhaps a few state-based pilot programs such as Alaska’s. Eventually, it should replace our current welfare system.
@8ZC5YXC3yrs3Y
Yes, but not at the expense of other social programs
@8SRK2LK4yrs4Y
Yes, if that person cannot afford basic living supplies and actually attempts to get a job
@8SL5M5D4yrs4Y
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.
No, I support the idea but I am unsure how well it can be implemented and if western society can handle such a large shift in the economic system.
@Brandonnoe84Libertarian 5mos5MO
Yes, but only the bare minimum for food, water, and utilities to a certain point, it should not be desirable living. There should also be no-low income housing which is a bare minimum housing unit to help reduce homeless rates.
@9SGS2K210mos10MO
Not yet at this point but I'm very open to the idea in the future when more jobs are lost to automation.
@9L74FFC1yr1Y
Yes, but institute it gradually over a set period to avoid mass disruption. Start with a state-based pilot program like Alaska’s. It should eventually replace our current welfare system
Yes, I think it would be good to cover basic necessities such as food and housing, however I am concerned about the bureaucracy and piling of national debt that could ensue.
@Jones4Potus2024 2yrs2Y
Yes, but only the top 3-5% should be taxed for it, and it should not affect welfare programs such as food stamps etc.
@BuffaloChips62 2yrs2Y
Yes, but a modified version with conditions and upper income limits
@9D3RPBQ2yrs2Y
Everyone should be required all of the needs they need to function as a Egalitarian society
@8Z5SKCG 1yr1Y
No, their has been no signs that universal basic income is helpful, and the federal government should focus on spending less money that it doesn't have, not more.
@9J9PZXD1yr1Y
No. We can't afford it.
We need to stop deficit spending and pay down the National debt. At the current rate of spending the USA will be underwater on the amount of interest paid annually compared the amount of GDP and revenue in twenty years. That is when SHTF for real. Game over. This idea isn't in the realm of possibility till the budget is under control. Just remember nothing is free. Some body has to pay the bills and it is usually the working middle class.
@9J9PZXD1yr1Y
A better option is the raise the federal minimum wage to a living wage when working 40 hrs a week in the cheapest state. States and cities with higher cost of living and have higher minimum wage rates.
@95SQ42D3yrs3Y
We should for people who are incapable of working
@9J8XYK51yr1Y
No, there is no proof UBI is effective in forwarding economic interests compared to other social safety nets of a similarly drastic nature.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
Yeah, I agree it’s not preferable, though it’s not without merits. A UBI system is better than no social net, but I’d prefer Universal Basic Services rather than Universal Basic Income.
@8HTGYJXIndependent5yrs5Y
No, this is a major stepping stone towards communism.
@8PSZK3PIndependent5yrs5Y
Not quite. If it is in place of the welfare state, then not at all. Libertarian economist Milton Friedman talked about a minimum income and even though his idea was different than say Andrew Yang, he believed it should be the good program a government should support. I think it was called a negative income tax. Communism is an economic system that is classless, moneyless, and has public ownership.
@8WRH3JS4yrs4Y
Yes, but only for a limited amount of time.
@8SHYFNL4yrs4Y
If minimum wage was a live-able wage, then in theory this program would not be needed
I think it should be assessed by financial situation. Those in need should receive enough money to live comfortably .
@8XK6V474yrs4Y
Yes but at the same time no because people will stop working and affect the economy and yes because it will help a lot of people who really need some economic help.
@8S59D8T4yrs4Y
Yes, only if it replaces the current welfare state.
@983VDYN3yrs3Y
The Government should supply the people with basic necessities they need, rather than the money to purchase them.
@95XBFBJIndependent3yrs3Y
Just enough to lift people off their feet and not be a way of life.
@8V47FCC4yrs4Y
Only for people who are unable to work
@985KHRCProgressive3yrs3Y
No, but instead use the money to fund public programs for those living in poverty.
@8ZYV6PMIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes, if it replaces most other forms of welfare.
@996Z4N4Republican2yrs2Y
@8HHWP4P5yrs5Y
@8XH3R3D4yrs4Y
I believe that we shouldn’t necessarily give out the money but rather provide opportunities for them to get on their feet financially and provide them with stable job opportunities.
@93DHR2YLibertarian3yrs3Y
When AI starts taking jobs
@97GNS7S3yrs3Y
Base income covered for disabled
No. A universal basic income will never cover enough of the costs in order to genuinely facilitate someone's quality of life. We should instead improve social programs.
@8NWGGDS5yrs5Y
Communism/socialism hasn’t worked in any historical context
@8K3CLWL5yrs5Y
Yes, this would eliminate or immensely reduce out poverty and homeless rate. All people should be able to eat and have shelter as it is a basic need to survive. Countries who have tried the UBI have found that the workforce increases since people will be working to improve their life, not to survive.
@8DDF9DY5yrs5Y
As a negative income tax.
@Ingalls3yrs3Y
Yes! However, there would be no need for UBI if conservative governance (trickle down economics) of the last forty years had not facilitated the shift of wealth from the middle class to the 1%.
@8SRBM5G4yrs4Y
Yes, but only a small amount. Not enough to live comfortably on without working.
@8LJR4KQ5yrs5Y
Do not implement it until there is good evidence that shows whether it is a positive or negative action.
@8JWHGMN5yrs5Y
Should first be trialled/invested more
@B4V2ZNN2mos2MO
Yes, but only to those who show they are in true need of help. With that a worker should check in on them 2-3 times a week to make sure they stay on tracl.
@9F9ZTCH2yrs2Y
Yes, only if the welfare system becomes more robust to support such a large-scale program.
@9F437D62yrs2Y
Yes but only for those who are low-income but employed, under the age of 18, or over age 65
@Kit-WolfkatProhibition 2yrs2Y
I'd only support it if it were only for the elderly, handicapped and disabled.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
