[ POLL ] An Argument Against Universal Basic Income.

Post Reply New Topic

a. The taxpayers would pay.

b. Another idea. Why don't the gov't create a series of investment portfolios. Thereby, reducing the dependence on taxpayers. Even do CDs and Roth IRAs.

c. What you do say does seem intuitive to you and I can see how it would make sense to you. My thinking is you don't keep those who don't want to be in the workplace and you have a more productive workplace. More productivity means more revenue and then more profit.

D. People are greedy and some will be bored. Some will want more and some will want a job to stymie the boredom.

E. Those who don't want to be in the workplace can stay home and won't have to bother those who do. Mental health goes up for them and those who are at the workplace. Those who stay home could do other things that benefit society in more indirect ways.

I see a Win-Win. Hey, I could be wrong. Only way to find out is to try it.

This is just me shooting radical ideas out there. I have no proof for them. They're just thoughts swimming in my head.

Many taxpayers don’t want to pay to support someone who doesn’t want to earn one’s own living.

Especially those who have difficult jobs where hazards are an everyday reality.

Guess you have a wrong imagination. It's not an huge amount of money what they get just barely enough to live from it without starving. Not really many people like to live of a very low income. Most people prefere to work just to improve and to earn more than just UBI.

True! Yet, these are the same ones who would say life is not fair.

Ah right, I messed up here. Just because people would be allowed to leave the jobs they don't like and still get UBI, most people wouldn't because they wouldn't be able to afford any hobbies or other things that took money. Some would, but even out of them, most would get tired of such a lifestyle eventually and return to the workforce, even if they can't get a job they like. So yes, I suppose it would work, as long as it's made sure that the money is used on necessary stuff and the people won't do things like eat out, go to movies or buy brand clothes. Maybe the UBI could be given as coupons that could only be used on food and other essentials?



I'm one of those taxpayers. I don't mind it when taxes are used to provide for those who can't work, but personally I don't think that those who could work but just don't want to should be allowed to live on tax money.

So it seems that a "Bare Essentials" UBI policy would not go over well.  It seems that some people would rather not earn those "extras" you mentioned, and would quit a well-paying job they don't like if they could get those luxury items for free.

Pretty soon there would be neighborhoods full of "Welfare Royalty" who have no idea of the true value of what they have, and who have no idea of how literally rewarding a full day's labor can be.

Let me ask you and Fireblossom this. Would either of you want people who don't want to be in employment to work for either of you? I'm talking about the clock watchers and those who can't wait to leave and go home.

Now, with the current system in place these types who will be forced to be employed or not eat will simply be forced to put on an act. As in, pretend to be enthusiastic about working there. All those types will do is know the right tone, say the right things and give the expected personality to the employer. Employer hires them and they sold themselves by faking, lying and pretending. And, all they will do is what is minimally required of them and they will do anything and everything to get out of work and getting the paid the most. Is this what you guys want?

You have UBI with some extra spending money not only would you help contribute to the economy but by deincentiving these types from going into employment and pursuing what they wish to pursue wouldn't the productivity of your companies go up because the only people you have there would be those who actually want to be there.

You guys may see what I'm suggesting as bad and negative and what I'm suggesting is counter-intutitive to everything you accept to be true but why don't we try something radically different? Let's see what happens. Maybe try it in a city or state and let's just see what the heck happens.

Fnord, when you said and I'm paraphrasing "if you can't handle employment then stay home." Why can't some do just that? This is an awesome idea you came up with which I took further. Maybe, just maybe we could have some indirect benefits from what I am suggesting. Why don't we pay people to stay home and in fact maybe to get that "more" past the basic UBI maybe they would have to show they're doing something productive like maybe inventing a new OS, new form of rocket engine, even creating differing apps, or even growing a garden and giving food to the homeless? Maybe this could solve the whole being a parasite problem.

And, by the way there is no such thing as 0% unemployment anyway.

It’s true. There are times when people are held back from being creative because of employment obligations, and that some of the products of creativity produced by one with no employment obligations could prove productive.

But the folks who want to be slackers ruin it for the ones who seek to be productive through their creativity.

HASS ...pfeh!  When was the last time a mere artist produced a vaccine against a deadly virus?

Let artists subsidize themselves!

I’m actually including STEM folks in this. Creativity is much more than “art.” Engineers have to exercise it on a daily basis,

Thomas Alva Edison couldn’t hold down a job if his life depended on it.

False Claim.  Inventing was Thomas Alva Edison's job, and he kept at it up until shortly before his death.

You really should read more.

i don't get why rich people should get anything, i mean why should it not be phased out above a certain amount of means-tested wealth? btw, i'm told a form of UBI could be implemented right now via tax code tweaks, by modifying the platform of the earned income tax credit.

That makes sense at first, but it does not take into account the inherent laziness and greed of the human spirit.

as will rogers suggested, an exchange tax on all wall st. transactions would pay for a lot.

I should read more???? You totally missed my point. Everybody should “read more.” I’m saying that STEM types of folks can be creative, too.

Thomas Edison couldn’t make time to work for someone else because of the time he took in inventing. Obviously, he was able to make it financially viable over time....but he had plenty of lean years.

It is much more difficult within the context of today to immerse one’s self in a single-minded quest.

It is almost impossible, these days, to make a living solely as an “inventor” without making time for, and being accountable to, someone else as an employer.

It would also encourage corporations to remove their listings from AMEX and DJX, and re-list on only off-shore exchanges.  No, there has to be a source that is both stable and secure; one that could not be removed as a source.