Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I don't think that it's a terribly interesting question as a yes-or-no question for all UBI policies.
The thing about UBI is that the devil is in the details: UBI covers a broad range of policies. You really need to know the specifics of a proposal to know what it entails; UBI policies may be very different.
For example, there are a number of left-wing groups who like the idea of UBI, because they see it as a way to redistribute wealth. Normally, they tend to want something like keeping spending policy more-or-less where it is, adding UBI, and increasing taxes on some groups that they'd like to shift wealth from.
There are also a number of small-government right-wing groups who like the idea of UBI, because they see it as a way to reduce the role of government in setting purchasing decisions. Normally, they tend to want something more like a revenue-neutral form of UBI; there, one does something like cutting spending policy (on various forms of subsidy, say, like for food or housing) by $N and then shifting that $N to UBI so people can choose how to spend it. Here's a right-libertarian take on UBI:
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income
So, okay, both our wealth-redistribution guys on the left and our small-government guys on the right are talking about UBI policies...but they are talking about policies with very different implications due to the specifics of the policy. The left-wing guy probably isn't especially excited about the form of UBI that the right-wing guy wants, and the right-wing guy probably doesn't like the form of UBI that the left-wing guy wants. So I'd really need to know the specifics of a given UBI policy before I could say whether I think it's a good idea; I wouldn't just be across-the-board in favor of or against any UBI implementation, but would need to see a specific UBI proposal and consider it individually.
Musk, of all people, put into vernacular UHI (universal high income), which is similar to Andrew Yang's "freedom dividend" in that the goal is not to provide "basic" just above slavery/desperation survivability, but instead leverage the huge economic growth from automation that can provide a dividend to every citizen, who by equal vote, deserve an equal share in the surplus/output of the country.
The Swiss proposal you quoted does seem like crack, for purposes of appearing like crack and not getting accepted. Freedom dividends can grow to that ammount without it being the initial implementation
The left tends to offer crack. The crack part that the left distorts UBI with is keeping all of the stupidity of current system. 50%-100% clawbacks on low incomes. Keeping existing welfare systems. Some right wing versions, Milton Friedman from Nixon era, also offer 50% clawbacks on low income. The only other right wing version of UBI is a cardboard box housing alternative that replaces all current government conditional aid with cash for all. The Charles Murray proposal is the least stupid of all of the above.
Centrist/true UBI can leverage above the Charles Murray model, higher UBI for slightly higher tax rates, that leave people with better than cardboard housing far better off than without the UBI/tax rates. People who don't like slavery (nominally left voters) could prefer higher taxes and higher UBI than (right wing) people who love slavery, but left and right politicians want misery (maybe one day the miserable will vote left if Israel first rulership is not dominant left objective) in order to appeal to voters, and so tolerating existing politician/electoral power has 0 chance of getting UBI.
The perfect opportunity to go from "barely above slavery" UBI to UHS, is that even more programs can be cut with higher UBI, and economic growth means higher tax surpluses that we can demand as dividends. At your "Swiss proposal" level of UBI, IDGAF about automation taking my job, I will either play videogames or take whatever useful job I get harassed into accepting all the pay for, but it is very easy to get a $12k-$18k UBI level that is paid for by taxes, and leaves 80%-90% of all taxpayers better off.