Hello, I’m not that informed about UBI, but here is my arguement:

Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn’t companies just subside the income by raising their prices? Also, do you believe capatilism can co-exist with UBI?

  • vin@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    17 minutes ago

    No, I don’t support UBI, but I support UBS - Universal basic services. Food, housing, water, education, etc should be free at a basic level. Basic level for housing for example will be ‘Housing First’ concept in Finland.

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    33 minutes ago

    I don’t like the idea of of subsidizing demand, but i’ll take anything at this point

  • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I assume you don’t believe in capitalism then. Because you suggestion is that the companies set the prices rather than the market. Anyway im for it because if done properly to should cover just needs. food and housing essentially. and it should replace all forms of cash assitance. welfare, disability, social security, unemployment. since anyone doing well would pay as much additional tax as they get or more then it just becomes something that helps when you need it. Lose your job and you immediately look for work not muck around with applying for unemployment because its always there. Get injured and you immediately have it. Can’t work due to age and its there. work part time and its there to help if you can’t handle 40 hours for whatever reason. have a kid, go back to school. Go to college and you have the funds to pay for the dorms and just need to worry about actual tuition.

  • nycki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 hours ago

    My stance on this is that if a machine can do the work of a hundred men, then ninety-nine men should be able to retire early with pay. Anything else is theft.

    So, yes, I support UBI, and no, I don’t think it would break capitalism. It’s the same amount of money being put into circulation, just for less work.

  • Acters@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    58 minutes ago

    only if that income is required for basic necessities and everyone will need in their lives. for a generalization, there are three things I can think of the top of my head that everyone needs. It is to have housing, healthcare, and food. There are many more basic needs people should have fulfilled but I digress.

    Currently in many first world and third world countries/classes are reliant on funding to fulfill most if not all basic needs. That is when it should be mandatory for UBI. How is something like that funded? like everything else. we all pay for it. Call it taxes, call it charity, call it whatever you want.

    Yet, Why would someone need UBI for basic needs? well mostly because the general public is more divided and distrustful of centralized sources/authorities. Yet the only way UBI would be able to occur is with that kind of system.

    So in all I don’t think UBI would be supported by me. I like federated services and decentralization. I don’t like the current state of all basic needs being behind paywalls. It is disappointing. I don’t know what would help us the most, but moving into this direction is just not what I can see would be kind to people who are low on economic scales or helpful for most who are barely scraping by. Even if I live more or less comfortably right now, I see many basic needs in my life that I would still want to improve substantially or become available for me to act on.

  • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    54 minutes ago

    Let’s see, lemmy, let’s see if we can find one upvoted opinion against UBI.

    Ah, no, we’re an echo chamber. But then what’s the point of AskLemmy, if you already know that everyone thinks the exact same way you do?

    • Lumidaub@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 minutes ago

      “Let’s see one upvoted opinion in favour of killing this healthy cat. Echo chamber!”

  • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    58 minutes ago

    Let’s see, lemmy, let’s see if we can find one upvoted opinion against UBI.

    Ah, no, we’re an echo chamber. But then what’s the point of AskLemmy, if you already know that everyone thinks the exact same way you do?

  • steeznson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I am a moderate supporter of UBI. Strongly support “negative income taxing” which is a bit more techy but essentially your income is topped up if it falls below a certain level as opposed to everyone getting a lump sum each month whether they need it or not.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I think this is a good place to start as the initial recipients are those most in need.

  • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Let’s say 50k is average income

    Basic income is 10k

    The average person would get 10k in UBI but pay 10k more in taxes

    They will have 50k dollars

    Someone that makes 100k would get the 10k in UBI but would have to pay 20k more in taxes.

    They will have 90k dollars

    Someone making 15k (federal min wage) would get 10k in UBI and pay nothing in taxes

    They will have 25k dollars

    This is simplified, but the idea is that all three people still made 165k combined. Just the person at the bottom got some help.

    UBI does not increase the total amount of money in the economy. Just moves it from the rich to the poor.

    The average person is still going to have the same spending power

    UBI only exists to solve a problem of capitalism. Other systems could have a UI like communism. But it’s the flaws of capitalism that needs it to correct itself.

    Social programs exist in capitalism and have existed for years. They are just a complex way of solving a basic problem. “How do we get poor people money?”

    Personally, I’d be for UBMI (Universal Bare Minimum Income). Everyone should be provided bare minimum from the society. Food, water, shelter, etc. If you can afford to pay it back, great, if you can’t, that’s fine too. But when people talk about UBI it’s always “how much??”. And it should be the bare minimum to survive and not be forced to run the capitalism rat race. If you’re content to sit in a small shelter and eat 3 meals a day, the government should give it to you. The government gives it to people who break the law and are no where near as deserving

    • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      44 minutes ago

      UBI only exists to solve a problem of capitalism […] moves it from the rich to the poor.

      I’m not sure I agree that UBI is the best way to solve this, but we are in agreement about the massive flaw in capitalism. When the richest man extracts the final dollar from his rival, capitalism is over. Money has no meaning because no one has any except for that one guy. That’s an impossible extreme, but it demonstrates the fundamental flaw that without money circulating, there is no economy.

      Putting money into the hands of the poor stimulates the economy. It gives them some ability to participate beyond the simple need for shelter and sustenance. Anyone with no discretionary income has no role other than demand for basic necessities (that’s not intended as an insult, that’s the reality of a wealth-based society)

      That being said, handing money out to everyone has an inflationary effect, so there would have to be some thought put into countering that. And I guarantee payday loan places would find a way to keep the poor impoverished.

      Anyway yours was a good comment I thought I’d piggyback into. There are flaws with UBI, but unfettered capitalism is unsustainable and it certainly one way to address the issue.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Would this communism have money? If so, what’s the purpose of the money?

      If people are choosing to buy things, that’s a free market and it’s not communism. If people are forced to buy specific things, it’s not really buying.

      If people are free to buy certain things but new people aren’t allowed to enter the market with new products, that’s just worse than capitalism.

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        If so, what’s the purpose of the money?

        Barter and trade will always be part of humanity unless we somehow manage post-scarcity. Money is so far the best way we’ve found to manage and track the value of things for that system.

        If people are choosing to buy things, that’s a free market

        No, it’s just a market, and even then that’s not a guarantee at all. It could be that people just trade money for valuables amongst themselves, or other systems I’m too stupid to conceive of

        If people are forced to buy specific things, it’s not really buying

        Yes, it is? Its only not buying if you don’t trade money for it, ie the government sending it to everyone for free

        If people are free to buy certain things but new people aren’t allowed to enter the market with new products, that’s just worse than capitalism.

        Good thing that’s not anyone’s suggestion

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Yes I’m in favor of UBI.

    I think capitalism would survive just fine with UBI.

    I don’t think prices would automatically cancel out the money, because prices are still subject to competition.

    As for whether people would still work after their basic needs are met, obviously. The evidence is people who are beyond subsistence and still seeking more money.