So, in my humble opinion, if the Gov(s) are printing money as there is no tomorrow and giving it for free to banks and big companies, why not also give it "for free" to the general population.
A recent experiment showed that UBI actually increased the economy because people use money to buy food and basic needs, so yeah... quite a no-brainer.

insofar as money is still needed, then sure; otherwise, we might well skip that and just have universal basic needs and rights.

It's an interesting topic worthy of discussion and consideration, IMO, however (this surprised me when I first learned of it — but makes sense upon further consideration) some of those who support it have less-than-upstanding (for lack of a better word) intentions. That is, rather than seeing its social welfare benefits, they support it as a means of countering social mobility and believe it will assure their class/economic superiority. Ouch!

As long as Peter Thiel is running around loose, it's a necessity.

@mark

I'm a proponent of a high value UBI. Basically pension level. Abolish all other types Student Allowance/Job Seeker etc etc and provide some additional targeted assistance for i.e disability etc when required. Admin savings alone would be massive

Qualification: a UBI is no substitute for universally accessible public services

plutôt un salaire à la qualification tel que conçu par Bernard Friot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcLelEGYQGM

If not, we should assure that there is a #housing and #Food justice, alongside if possible #electricity justice where atleast every community has access to a basic standard of them.

i want a ubi that isn't a substitute for social services, that gives you enough so work is optional and truly volitional and doesn't rely on the state or capitalism.

Easiest, if not the only way to maintain compatibility between democracy and capitalism (or at least something like it) in the 21st century. Without it, we have to give up on one or the other.

I still prefer a "national dividend" structure. But that could be considered a form of UBI. Or co-exist with it.

Not sure the economic impact of such a thing. Will it cause inflation to the point that it hurts those who are at it or those resting slightly above. I'm not sure.

We need a Maximum Basic Income. I think it would necessarily lead to an improvement in worker income. But I could be naive.

There is a time in the near future where five disciplines will converge to cause a severe lapse in the ability for government to care for those in need.

As robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotech, quantum computing and energy harnessment advance, there will be a time when they converge and machinery will develop that has the ability to replace humans in the workforce.

This has been happening for decades. We’ve seen robotics assist on assembly lines and has continued as we now routinely see kiosks that take orders in restaurants. As a result corporations are able to bypass the expenses that come with having employees the most important of these being payroll taxes… social security and medicare.

There has to be policy created that forces employers and anyone who deploys robotics that displace workers to continue to pay payroll taxes for those displaced.

In doing so, the government could fund a UBI for employees who are displaced by up and coming technology.

@ericrogergarcia #EvanPollFAQQualified

of course. But it won’t be sufficient. We need to learn how to accomplish ourselves without the money part.

As long as it's not the "abolish all other public benefits" UBI.

I voted yes, because it's the right step in the right direction, but I don't think it's the destination.

Eventually, I think there shouldn't be a need for a UBI because all basic needs should just be met at no cost.

Need a house? You get one for free that is big enough to meet your needs. And it's your house, not a government-owned house that you can stay in.

Have a kid or get married? Trade in your house for a bigger one.

You live in a city and need to travel? You've got well built and completely free buses, light rail, etc.

You live outside a city and need to travel? You get a free car that is basic and meets your needs.

Hungry? Go to the government grocery and get some. No checkouts. Just bag them up and take them home.

You want something beyond your basic needs, like a vacation home, or a fancier car, or a boat? That's on you. You have to pay for that.

Any developed country could provide this with appropriate taxation on the wealthiest.

But until then, a UBI could get us closer.

@evan@prodromou.pub

The only thing that makes me a qualified yes rather than a strong yes is there exist UBI plans which consist of taking the pot of public benefits (healthcare, disability, unemployment, pension, schooling) & converting the costs of those programs directly to UBI with no increase or potentially a decrease in the total amount of money spent. If UBI *replaces* conventional gov benefits rather than *augmenting* them the amount of overall benefit to members of the public could be afterward less.

if we lived in a world where average GDP could give everyone a comfortable life, sure. But right now our option is only very threadbare UBI to not disincentivize work too much, at the cost of other government programs.

Probably true also even in a US-only case, but for an aspirational program like UBI we need to be thinking worldwide, morally

we should fund it with the tears of billionaires

Remembering this excellent piece by Mary-Dan Johnston. It's called, "Bread and Roses: Beyond a Basic Income." http://gutsmagazine.ca/bread/

Yes, but only if it's closer to Heinlein's version than to Yang's: https://circle.lt/post/20191004-twin-review-universal-basic-income-from-1938-to-2018/

It seems to me that effort would be better spent on meeting basic needs before anything like UBI is considered. Expanding social programs can reduce their per capita costs, while UBI may do the opposite. Also, UBI is no guarantee for children.

*From a U.S. perspective.

There should be a good unemployment system. Why should we also give money to people who don't need it?

qualified, contingent on how #UBI is paid for. Strong yes if exclusively paid for through taxes on property (preferably land, plus intellectual, if IP is not killed) and pollution (primarily carbon emissions, but also various bads such as ads). Strong no if paid for through taxes on human labor.

well, waddya know. 14 hours in, and it seems like your followers on mastodon overwhelmingly support the same minority political position that I do.

I wonder what the same survey would look like if given to the general US population.

The admin/clerical costs associated with tax credits/social welfare payments could be better utilized in supporting UBI.

and we should pay for it by taxing heavily the top 1%

Yes, UBI accompanied by massive restructuring (read: cuts) of the military budget, would lead to huge quality of life improvements for US citizens.

So it will probably never happen.

I have no idea. Has anyone done an objective writeup of the pros and cons of a policy like this?

Wow, this is a very popular poll! Lots of responses.

I think what the comments show is that there are a lot of ideas and designs for how UBI could work.

I think the poll response shows that a lot of people want it to work.

I'm a qualified yes. I think all people have a right to the basics: food, shelter, education, and so on. UBI could do that. If UBI became a substitute for providing these to people, I'd be opposed.

Thanks everyone for responses!

I don't agree with your premise. I find work exhausting. I'd be happy to stay home all day and program Open Source software, tend my garden, write, walk, do projects with my kids.

@D2Synua most people are just like you and me. They'd take some extra income and invest it in education, furniture, clothes.

@mpjgregoire #NegativeIncomeTax and #UBI are just minor variations on the same theme, either one would be a huge improvement on the status quo.

I reckon that there should be a UBI, but initially it should set at a very low level, something like 2% of a country's median income.

In the UK it would be around £2 per day, £14 per week, in the US it would be $1.70 per day, $12 per week.

This would offset against a modest rise in income tax for people earning above the median income.

For most people that UBI is insignificant, but for many it would be nice.

1/