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?

  • Caveman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 days ago

    I support it. It’s an insanely expensive policy though and should be implemented carefully and be based on income. An example would be:

    • No income $1000 a month
    • Min wage $500 a month

    Combined with better tax policies that don’t tax poor people. Health, education and other basic services should be almost free while having a strong social housing programme.

    This way nobody gets priced out of living and there’s still plenty of incentive to get a job while having some funds to invest in hygiene and clothing to land the job.

    This amount and threshold should be increased in the future.

    I really support UBI since you can better model the demand curve with externalities instead of making things free while having it accessible to poor people. Free school might be too low of a cost when calculating benefits to the individual and society so giving people money to afford a heavily subsidised cost would allow for more accurate economics.

    • AnonomousWolf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 days ago

      That’s not UBI, and might incentivise people to not work.

      With UBI everyone gets Eg. 1000$ a month, no matter what you earn or have.

      (taxes would have to go up to pay for this, which is fine, tax the rich)

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        I’m pretty sure people living on $1000 a month would want to work to get extra income in most cases.

    • Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      17 days ago

      You don’t have to lower UBI by income. Tax does it for you.

      Pulling numbers out my arse, you band your tax until an income of 100k means they pay 12k in tax, essentially reclaiming the 1k/pcm they are paid by ubi. All while insuring they are never worse off than taking no pay rise, as they still have 88k to spend on luxuries.

      Numbers subject to bitter argument.

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 days ago

        That’s true. People shouldn’t be discouraged financially from working. I haven’t done I proper calculation of all cases of this and the total tax cost but for sure you could use the tax system to get the desired distribution.

      • Wiz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        Ugh, why give them money and then tax it again? That makes no sense.

        We do that on America’s Unemployment Income, and it seems ridiculous. Why give it, if you’re just taking away some later?