Could a Universal Basic Income, help solve the Governments deficit problems?

413x said:
13k a year tax free for me and my partner? That would mean I don't have to work
Can pay all the bills and have enough left over to have a little bit of luxury.
More important, I'd have 37 hours extra a week free time. Which might be a poison chalice. What would motivate me?
Click to expand...

The same thing that motivates you now?
If you'd be happy living on 13k a year and you want more free time, why are you working 37 hours a week?
 
touch said:
The same thing that motivates you now?
If you'd be happy living on 13k a year and you want more free time, why are you working 37 hours a week?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be happy on 13k. I'd be happy on 13k a couple of days work.

Also. Need to build up a buffer now for all the **** that can happen with loss of job, loss of partners job, unexpected events.

If had that 13k buffer. I'd know I didn't have to worry about that.
 
D.P. said:
The benefits are a bureaucratic nightmare, incredibly inefficient, subject to fraud, and don't distribute resources optimally to those that need it. Essentially those that need increased financial support often wont receive any or sufficient amounts.

A UBI is a much more efficient method of distribution which is literally universal. The important part is the UBI has to be sufficient to cover all existing benefits requirements.


The upside is that more people will have more money to spend on the economy, growing GDP. They also live happier and healthier lives, thus are more productive.
Click to expand...

Actually I will give a more detailed response to this. Making sure that people get the benefits that they deserve and no one's claiming stuff that they don't deserve is necessarily a horribly complex process. The idea that you can just sidestep that process and give everyone the same amount is not feasible. What do you do, add up all benefits that someone could potentially get and set the UBI level there? Because if you don't then someone is potentially losing out, then you have to start assessing who deserves extra, and you're back to square one. By all means highlight areas where you think that the current benefits scheme doesn't work and let's talk about how to improve them, but giving everyone the same amount will not benefit the people who actually need it.
 
R.P.L said:
Actually I will give a more detailed response to this. Making sure that people get the benefits that they deserve and no one's claiming stuff that they don't deserve is necessarily a horribly complex process. The idea that you can just sidestep that process and give everyone the same amount is not feasible. What do you do, add up all benefits that someone could potentially get and set the UBI level there? Because if you don't then someone is potentially losing out, then you have to start assessing who deserves extra, and you're back to square one. By all means highlight areas where you think that the current benefits scheme doesn't work and let's talk about how to improve them, but giving everyone the same amount will not benefit the people who actually need it.
Click to expand...
No one said it has to be an either or, but for UBI to be beneficial then it has to cover the majority of existing benefits. That doesn't prevent additional benefits possible for those with specific additional needs, of which there are very few so the inefficiency is not important.

If you have a UBI that is so small it still requires everyone to apply for the same existing benefits but with perhaps some adjustments to value then you have only made things more complex.


Moreover, the true benefits of UBI only really happen when it is at a minimum livable value. That will require a fairly fundamental change to the way society views wealth and taxation. That change is inevitable, the only question is when and how.much bloodshed in civil wars will occur
 
D.P. said:
Moreover, the true benefits of UBI only really happen when it is at a minimum livable value. That will require a fairly fundamental change to the way society views wealth and taxation. That change is inevitable, the only question is when and how.much bloodshed in civil wars will occur
Click to expand...

I'll believe it when I see it ;)

Aside from that, the point still stands that I don't see any way that in the real world UBI won't just cause more problems than it solves. As with most things socialist, it sounds lovely but is not applicable to real life.
 
R.P.L said:
I'll believe it when I see it ;)

Aside from that, the point still stands that I don't see any way that in the real world UBI won't just cause more problems than it solves. As with most things socialist, it sounds lovely but is not applicable to real life.
Click to expand...


well, i will take the word of economists who in a large majority (about. 80%) believe UBI will be an important benefit and is viable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom