this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
222 points (97.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27160 readers
2770 users here now

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 funDoxxing, 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 spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust 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:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 hours ago

I'd be in favor of both. Universal services and some income.

A little bit of basic income would allow some flexibility just in case there's something that UBS doesn't cover on an individual level.

UBI that's big enough to cover housing, food, clothing, education, etc would almost certainly get abused and exploited in every way possible to not be used on housing, food, clothing, and education...

[–] Odd_so_Star_so_Odd 5 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Those basic services all have a cost associated with them... that's why people support UBI to cover those basic services...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

When I say it should be free, it means that there is no cost to be paid by individual

[–] Acters 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Why are you under the impression that UBS will not pay for those services?

The US Post service is the biggest UBS that most Americans pay with taxes. Those who can't afford or can't make money to pay taxes or otherwise still benefit from it as "free"

You seem to think it doesn't exist or will not work. Yet it does. Libraries exist, public transportation exists. People needs can be met.

[–] Acters 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I agree, and I think the best service we have but is being overshadowed by Amazon is the US Post service. It really needs a push to modernize.

I also think instead of UBI, anything that is a basic need will be taxed based on a progressive schedule instead of a flat percentage. That way if they try to make it more expensive then it will be taxed too much to be viable. We need to combat this inflation and make it so that a lower priced item is more profitable!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Trying to distort the market so that lower priced items are more profitable is quite challenging to do without unintended consequences. A progressive consumption tax would definitely be a worthy experiment