While I'd prefer to fully dismantle the whole capitalist system, I can accept UBI as the most realistic compromise we're likely to get in our lifetimes.

Here's a good breakdown: https://econreview.studentorg.berkeley.edu/unboxing-universal-basic-income/

As for my thoughts, yes there would be a noticeable impact at first, but UBI would help stabilise and strengthen the economy in the long term because purchasing power and demand will increase. If supply can keep up, prices won't go up. Companies can't just raise prices as that's called price fixing. Antitrust laws should be there to prevent that, but your mileage may vary depending on your country. That means that if some companies decide to raise prices because of more purchasing power, some smart company is going to charge less to gain more market share. So we're still doing capitalism, but there's a social safety net.

Also, people will still go to work to find purpose. Except "work" in this case could mean the freedom and flexibility to contribute locally, or take higher risks like entrepreneurship or becoming an artist.

My pie in the sky hope for UBI is that it would be large enough so that you don't need to work to live, maybe with some frugality.

At that point I'd be fine with scrapping minimum wage altogether. Companies would have to offer a job/salary that attracts people who aren't desperate.

It would be much easier to quit a job. And I think it would broadly increase the value of labor. Automation would increase, but that wouldn't be a problem, because its no longer a problem to be unemployed.

Let's say 50k is average income

Basic income is 10k

The average person would get 10k in UBI but pay 10k more in taxes

They will have 50k dollars

Someone that makes 100k would get the 10k in UBI but would have to pay 20k more in taxes.

They will have 90k dollars

Someone making 15k (federal min wage) would get 10k in UBI and pay nothing in taxes

They will have 25k dollars

This is simplified, but the idea is that all three people still made 165k combined. Just the person at the bottom got some help.

UBI does not increase the total amount of money in the economy. Just moves it from the rich to the poor.

The average person is still going to have the same spending power

UBI only exists to solve a problem of capitalism. Other systems could have a UI like communism. But it's the flaws of capitalism that needs it to correct itself.

Social programs exist in capitalism and have existed for years. They are just a complex way of solving a basic problem. "How do we get poor people money?"

Personally, I'd be for UBMI (Universal Bare Minimum Income). Everyone should be provided bare minimum from the society. Food, water, shelter, etc. If you can afford to pay it back, great, if you can't, that's fine too. But when people talk about UBI it's always "how much??". And it should be the bare minimum to survive and not be forced to run the capitalism rat race. If you're content to sit in a small shelter and eat 3 meals a day, the government should give it to you. The government gives it to people who break the law and are no where near as deserving

In my mind, a UBI would replace a lot of welfare and retirement programs and would absorb much of their budget. What would we need the whole food stamps system for if we guarantee everyone an income? What would we need social security for if you have your Universal Basic Income?

Since it's universal, we can do away with all those systems we have to make sure you "deserve" it. We can eliminate entire data centers, close entire offices. Those people (mostly office worker accountant types) can go work in some other part of the government like school systems, the FDA, the FAA, something that actually helps make society go. That should free up some budget.

Do an actual goddamn audit of the Pentagon, if we find some bullshit pet projects we don't actually need costing taxpayers billions of dollars we bust a general down to recruit and find or invent a way for him to die for his country.

Capitalism may not be able to survive alongside a UBI but I think a largely free market economy can. I'll always have my housing and food needs bet but I'd like to have an Xbox so I'll go get a job to get money to pay for one.

My stance on this is that if a machine can do the work of a hundred men, then ninety-nine men should be able to retire early with pay. Anything else is theft.

So, yes, I support UBI, and no, I don't think it would break capitalism. It's the same amount of money being put into circulation, just for less work.

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.

Sure, eliminate billionaires to pay for it

At first, maybe. But that's the neat thing about capitalism and the free market: the first to lower their prices again has a huge advantage. There's always an incentive to operate at minimal profit.

Why wouldn't UBI and capitalism be able to coexist? It makes MORE capitalism possible, as it were, expanding its principles of supply and demand to fields such as employment. Right now, people need a job, any job, and if there's no job that fulfills your needs, tough - you take the shitty one and you'll like it. With a UBI, you could shop around for the perfect job, choosing the best offer, or not "buy" at all right now because the market doesn't offer what you want and it's not like you're going to starve without a job. Employers would be forced to make YOU an offer that YOU can accept and if they can't operate under these circumstance, tough. Capitalism in a nutshell, really.

Companies will raise their prices (to "what the market can bear"), but they will never be able to raise prices enough to offset the positive effects of UBI. It's not like your internet bill is going to go up by $2000/month if they suddenly know you're getting $2000/month in UBI. Your typical person makes purchases from dozens of different companies. An increase of "what the market can bear" won't be all that much.

And afterward, the effective purchasing power of the vast majority of people will have increased - most noticeably for those who currently have nothing / very little. Least noticeably for those who are reasonably well off already. And for those who are currently doing extremely well off, their purchasing power will end up dropping.

Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about and I made all numbers in this message up.

Yes.

Yes... BUT I'd actually encourage people to consider an even better alternative, which is Universal Basic Services.

As you point out, giving people money is no guarantee that their spending power will be enough to cover their needs. I've heard it said that any UBI which is sufficient is unaffordable, and any that is affordable is insufficient. I think it's still a policy we should experiment with, and I think even a small UBI could elevate poverty. But a more effective alternative is to try and provide essentials directly, free of cost.

What this looks like is publicly owned housing; a robust, fully-funded public education system that includes pre-K and higher ed; universal healthcare; and free food. Some of these -- like housing and food -- sound shocking and difficult, but to an earlier generation, so would the others. And we already have some of these programs for the very poor. The key to executing them is to bypass markets. Markets will always raise the cost of essentials because the demand is unlimited. Instead of paying private landlords for housing, the state or non-profit entities need to own the homes. There will still be costs associated with maintenance, but there need be no dividends or investor profits. Same with food. We might not be able to make everything in a grocery store free. But if you have well-run local gardens, they'll actually produce a substantial amount of food that you can just put in baskets by the entrance and let people take from.

Unlike UBIs, which are inherently inflationary, UBS programs are deflationary. By offering free goods they create competition against market prices and make the stuff people still pay for (with a UBI) cheaper.

If you'd like to see how all of this works, go check out the tabletop RPG my friends developed at c/fullyautomatedrpg, or the world guide for the setting at https://fullyautomatedrpg.com/resources.

I assume you don't believe in capitalism then. Because you suggestion is that the companies set the prices rather than the market. Anyway im for it because if done properly to should cover just needs. food and housing essentially. and it should replace all forms of cash assitance. welfare, disability, social security, unemployment. since anyone doing well would pay as much additional tax as they get or more then it just becomes something that helps when you need it. Lose your job and you immediately look for work not muck around with applying for unemployment because its always there. Get injured and you immediately have it. Can't work due to age and its there. work part time and its there to help if you can't handle 40 hours for whatever reason. have a kid, go back to school. Go to college and you have the funds to pay for the dorms and just need to worry about actual tuition.

UBI is the only solution to our corrupt politics. It disempowers the state and empowers individuals. You can stop relying on promises from fake heroes to help the poor, and completely eliminate poverty and crime.

AI and robotics is often cited as a catalyst for UBI. But it is deeply connected to political corruption. Our asshats will tell you that tech oligarchy deserves all our money, and nationalism means our weapons, oil oligarchs need to be given the rest of our money, and what little US manufacturing there is, needs to be protected so that you pay through the nose for stuff. All of this is BS. Let robotics/AI/China deliver us cheap stuff, and UBI afford not only to buy the cheap stuff, but let us have our time freed up in order to design/sell even more productively made stuff/tech that can improve the lives of those who will pay us for it.

UBI does not stop the rich from getting richer. It grows economy significantly, and all money trickles up to the rich. UBI does disempower the rich from stealing your money, through war and war posturing. AI, without UBI, needs to be weaponized as national security that includes the same media disinformation on your tolerance for warmongering empire that makes you/us poorer.

Every disgusting demonic evil inflicted on Americans by politicians is entirely the result of oppression and fearmongering to support unethical evil out of fear of homelessness, and healthcare access. You cannot support a sustainable world if society is on the verge of collapse and there is some war you idiotically are made to tolerate. Misery gives you no time to cure your stupidity. UBI frees us all into doing something useful instead desperately clinging to a job that does not produce anything worthwhile or competitive. 5 recruiter calls per day offering you a better job cures your stupidity.

Your theory about companies raising prices to offset UBI is actually undercut by historical and present evidence.

There was a time when the United States had welfare. The United States still has food stamps. But nobody is seriously pretending that these things did or do drive up grocery prices.

Similarly, over time various states have raised minimum wage, and if your argument were accurate, then the prices in those states would have immediately risen to match minimum wage, but they didn't.

In other words, you're repeating a conservative talking point that has been repeatedly debunked by reality. I think you could try to improve your argument by arguing that inflation happens across the board, to everything, and therefore it would also happen to UBI. But what we've actually seen is that's not true.

Yes.

The whole competition for who has more money because that means they are more successful and thus far be superior over others is... Stupid

I support UBI.

But then we should also change the way job contracts work. Because currently, "work" is mostly considered to be some 40 hour stressful thing.

Yes, with the caveat that it will need to be coupled with a massive pendulum swing in favor of workers rights.

Yes I’m in favor of UBI.

I think capitalism would survive just fine with UBI.

I don’t think prices would automatically cancel out the money, because prices are still subject to competition.

As for whether people would still work after their basic needs are met, obviously. The evidence is people who are beyond subsistence and still seeking more money.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

Yes-ish. While there are some good results from small scale tests, I'd argue that the effect it'd have on a macro level isn't fully understood. I'm all for testing it out large scale so we can get some reliable data there as well. And if it turns out that it doesn't result in inflation or corpos eating up the extra, then I'm all for it.

A few days ago, I saw a post about negative income tax which is something that had occurred to me independently. Wasn't surprised to learn that someone with more brains had actually given it some serious thought and that it had an actual name.

That would be the sort of thing I'd be interested in being implemented, so that those who are on little to no income - especially those who can't simply "get a (better) job" for whatever reason - don't fall below the poverty line.

This is not to say that the UK benefits system (where I am) doesn't work at all, but it's often coupled with the expectation of getting the recipient back into work or to getting a better job where you don't need them any more.

It would be nice if that part went away.

100%

Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn't companies just subside the income by raising their prices?

This is always the argument; but any UBI bills worth a shit would have already thought of this and include laws on limiting that from happening.

Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn't companies just subside the income by raising their prices?

Not necessarily. Companies need to set prices they can compete with. Customers might just go to the competitor otherwise.

This is provided that there is competition. Monopolies can set the prices how they want, because there’s no competition.

USA needs universal healthcare first

UBI would have some inflationary effects, but if you stuck it through, it would be less than the UBI payment in the first place.

The problem is getting people to stick to it because unfortunately, for Americans, if you give them $2000 a month in UBI but their purchasing power doesn’t go up by what they perceive as what $2000 is worth; they will punish you in the next election.

I think the expanded child tax credit in 2020 could be a good example to follow for what the roll out of UBI would look like. But we let it expire despite it lifting so many kids out of poverty even if just temporarily and freaked out about inflation so hard that I have my doubts that our American society would ever have the fortitude to be able to implement a permanent UBI

That's the same logic opponents of raising the minimum wage use to justify their position

I don't like the idea of of subsidizing demand, but i'll take anything at this point

I am a moderate supporter of UBI. Strongly support "negative income taxing" which is a bit more techy but essentially your income is topped up if it falls below a certain level as opposed to everyone getting a lump sum each month whether they need it or not.

Are you in support of UBI?

I don't think that it's a terribly interesting question as a yes-or-no question for all UBI policies.

The thing about UBI is that the devil is in the details: UBI covers a broad range of policies. You really need to know the specifics of a proposal to know what it entails; UBI policies may be very different.

For example, there are a number of left-wing groups who like the idea of UBI, because they see it as a way to redistribute wealth. Normally, they tend to want something like keeping spending policy more-or-less where it is, adding UBI, and increasing taxes on some groups that they'd like to shift wealth from.

There are also a number of small-government right-wing groups who like the idea of UBI, because they see it as a way to reduce the role of government in setting purchasing decisions. Normally, they tend to want something more like a revenue-neutral form of UBI; there, one does something like cutting spending policy (on various forms of subsidy, say, like for food or housing) by $N and then shifting that $N to UBI so people can choose how to spend it. Here's a right-libertarian take on UBI:

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income

Of course, as with any policy proposal, the details matter a lot. And the Swiss proposal is problematic in a number of ways. For starters, 2,800 USD a month means that a married couple could get $67,200 per year for doing nothing. And while it’s true that Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of per capita income, that’s still an awful lot of money. Furthermore, the Swiss proposal seems to involve implementing a basic income in addition to their currently existing welfare system. Few libertarians would be willing to sign up for that deal. But as a replacement for traditional welfare programs, there is a lot for libertarians to like about a basic income.

So, okay, both our wealth-redistribution guys on the left and our small-government guys on the right are talking about UBI policies...but they are talking about policies with very different implications due to the specifics of the policy. The left-wing guy probably isn't especially excited about the form of UBI that the right-wing guy wants, and the right-wing guy probably doesn't like the form of UBI that the left-wing guy wants. So I'd really need to know the specifics of a given UBI policy before I could say whether I think it's a good idea; I wouldn't just be across-the-board in favor of or against any UBI implementation, but would need to see a specific UBI proposal and consider it individually.

Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn't companies just subside the income by raising their prices?

As someone planning on starting a B2B company, I don't see a problem with that. If companies make a ton of money, tax companies more and redistribute again. The curve can be made to fit.

But there's a bigger reason for doing UBI: It's cheaper and more effective than existing welfare. And more people will like it.

not a 100% ubi fan, BUT, the times, they are a changing - and I firmly believe every robot deployed should have to offset ubi. every AI cycle should drive ubi funding.

Trained on the involuntary corpus of millions if not billions of people, it must benefit society overall otherwise we're going to destroy everything.

Yes