You're viewing a single thread.
Universal basic income does not fix inequality, it doesn't take existing accumulated wealth into account. You get X amount per month, yay, food. Jeff Bezos gets the same and throws it on the money pile without blinking an eye. It will lead to more inflation and you'll still be poor compared to who's wealthy. Socially corrected incomes are a way better tool for battling inequality, and in today's world's, it shouldn't anymore cost a million-person bureaucracy to run a wealth-distributing system either.
If anything they'll pay loads to smart people who can help them calculate the absolute minimum, taking away your freedom to choose what to eat, when to eat, where to live, how to live etc.
I get the sentiment, but they will create the absolute worst possible outcome as it benefits them the most.
That's quite a shallow take on the whole thing. Universal Income's main impacts are indirect and affect the whole of society, for example:
- It allows people to give it a go as inventors or artists at any point of their lifes, rather than the traditional 2 points of "young adult still getting money from your parents" and "having retired (for a few by having made so much money that can retire early) and do what he or she always wanted to do".
- It places a floor on all incomes. Specifically if Universal Income is high enough so that people can afford housing and food from it alone, nobody will ever accept any jobs paying the same or less - all jobs will have to offer something beyond it to attract any workers.
- Less crime because the sorts of crimes that desperate people commit and other "low yield" petty crimes will pretty much dissapear because they're not worth the risk and people don't need to do it.
As for means testing it or not, it really boils down to the complexity and cost associated with means testing: if it's cheaper if not means tested, why do it? It suspect Jeff Bezos' "pleasure" in getting Universal Income will be nothing next to what the losses from not to being able to pay shit salaries and treat his workers like shit anymore will make him feel.
With UBI everyone would get it and any salary from a job would be additional. So salaries would go down, but compensated by UBI
Then they'll tie eligibility for UBI to being employed or seeking if able or having some sort of medical excuse for not being able and we're back here.
The U in UBI is for unconditional. If there are conditions, it's not UBI...
Whilst I wouldn't say that would be the case for certain, it does sound like a genuine possibility for a trully Universal (rather than in name only) UBI.
Those are the advantages of a redistributional, social security safety net income and a minimum wage. UBI does not deliver, because EVERYONE gets it. It is impossible that for example housing prices would stay the same. They'd rise, because now the kid with the rich parent still outbids you: (UBI) vs (UBI + rich parents), the inequality in society stays the same, at best. It would only work if accumulated capital is redistributed equally over everyone as well. Which is communism.
Social corrections to existing system are superior. Not everyone should get the same. Some people need more, some need less.
Yes, everyone should have the right to good housing, food and to live stressfree (that is, with a bit of a financial buffer instead of pay cheque to pay cheque), but UBI will not accomplish that. Social-democratic systems such as Western and northern Europe already have, do, to reasonable extent.
A well implemented UBI would be funded by a progressive tax system that taxes rich people more heavily that anyone else. If that is the case a rich persons taxes would end up increasing more than the UBI amount. At the same time everyone else's taxes may increase some but the UBI would more than cover the increase. That would lead to a net decrease in inequality.
Social corrections to existing system are superior. Not everyone should get the same. Some people need more, some need less.
A UBI as described above is a social correction. In essence it would redistribute money from those who have plenty of excess money to those who are struggling.
but UBI will not accomplish that.
This is just your opinion. How do you know it won't accomplish that when it has never been implemented at scale?
Social-democratic systems such as Western and northern Europe already have, do, to reasonable extent.
Ultimately a UBI can achieve a similar end result as the social-democratic systems. The key is in making sure it is implemented well. UBI is just a way of achieving the same goal in a different way.
How would socially corrected incomes work? You tell the government you made $500k this year and they tell you that you can keep $400k?
You're right that UBI does not create equality, it's just a floor for basic needs being covered. It's probably a little more palatable politically (ha) than socially corrected incomes.
I would argue we need other systemic changes like anti-monopoly enforcement, stronger unions and massive worker cooperatives to even start to address inequality, because of the disparity in power.
On top it's also how the entire tax system works, and for good reason.
You earn 500k.
First 100k: 10% tax. second 100k: 20% tax. ... Last 100k: 50% tax.
You make more, you contribute more. That's how the dream worked very well for a long time. It's just that the higher tax brackets went down and down and down... giving everyone random money for nothing every month fixes no social inequality issues at all. Potentially making it worse.
You've got the "from each according to their ability" part. The tax and welfare system we have now is missing the "to each according to their needs" part. A UBI is literally an overnight thing we can implement now, to vastly improve the lives of the most downtrodden, and it'll save money in the long run for the government.
Ah, I've heard something similar referred to as a progressive tax. Same thing? You're right, that's a good policy.
That's sort of how it works yes. Most western countries already have similar things. If you, for example, make less than 1200 € per month, you get an extra 300 € to get to what is theoretically needed to survive. In Belgium it's called "leefloon". In Germany it's "Burgergeld". It is the very lowest anyone can "earn". You only need to prove residence and a few other things (they want to shield the system from recent migrants), the bar for being eligible is very low, the main factor is your (lack of) income. The tier 'higher' is unemployment money. It's a nicer cheque, but you have to "actively search for a job". You need to have worked and contributed to this system for x years to be eligible. Both exclude people who clearly don't need a UBI. Which is why it's superior. There is 0 societal benefit from giving wealthy people more money for no reason whatsoever. The main issue with the existing systems is that taxes for the wealthy and corps got too damn low to support it, and that such systems require a big bureaucracy to verify who is eligible and who isn't, and to guide them towards social housing, education, jobs etc. Tho the second argument becomes less and less valid in a digital age. 95 % of needed information I'd already in government databases.
In the states I believe the process you're describing is called "means testing." It's how the government determines whether someone can receive food stamps or other government assistance: checking first if they really need it, do they have the means to buy food, etc.
The advantage of UBI is that the question of who has a right to claim the benefit is completely sidestepped, and so is the accompanying bureaucracy and barriers.
You're right, rich people don't need UBI. At the same time - much harder to complain about something everyone gets. Much harder to take back a right that all citizens have, than "charity" that only the powerless receive. Harder to call people "welfare queens".