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?
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?
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.
The advantage of a straightforward UBI over NIT is that voters are selfish and stupid. If everyone gets a check, they are far more likely to support maintaining and increasing the benefit. It also removes the stigma that would be present for those receiving NIT payments.
Never considered the “voters are stupid and greedy” angle… but they are so you might be right here.
The main argument against NIT which I’d always heard was that you were losing the savings on administration that UBI has. In theory with UBI you can get rid of all disabilities and public pensions beaurocracy and means-testing since everyone gets the same lump sum.
NIT has some form of means-testing since you need to catalog who earns what to find those in need.