Is Universal Basic Income the answer?

[rjs330]

that is how you want to look at it, I can look at child-raising in the same way. If a couple decides to have a child thinking they will be able to support that child, then due to circumstances that are not their fault, they are unable to do so, it would be a proper function of government to help them out, just like you say it is proper to help

That's what we have unemployment for.

 

[rjs330]

You do know that just thinking you can support a child is no guarantee you will be able to support that child, right?

The point is, you drew a distinction between help for child raising and help for a temporarily unemployed. I am showing that there is no distinction.

That's why we have unemployment and welfare programs. This is far different that just paying everyone for having children. If you loose your job you get unemployment until you get another one. If you suffer illness or injury you get welfare or social security.

That way you are not paying a person to stay home who is an able bodied person who could work, but chooses not to.

 

[rjs330]

Are you willing to say then that parents are making a stupid decision by thinking they can support a child?

Sometimes yes. If you can't afford a child because if circumstances beyond your control such as illness or job loss, we have mechanisms in place already.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That's what we have unemployment for.

Right. A government program. UBI would also be a government program.

That's why we have unemployment and welfare programs. This is far different that just paying everyone for having children. If you loose your job you get unemployment until you get another one. If you suffer illness or injury you get welfare or social security.

I know UBI would be administered differently from unemployment, but that is no reason to declare UBI invalid or immoral or whatever it is you are declaring it. So far your best argument is the fact that it would be hard to afford a UBI program given the current funding. That is a problem. But just a practical problem, not a moral problem.

That way you are not paying a person to stay home who is an able bodied person who could work, but chooses not to.

As I said, very few people will be content to stay at home and collect the UBI if they are able to go out and work and make even more money in addition to his UBI. That way they might be able to afford a jet ski that they could never afford on his UBI alone. Likewise for a Cancun vacation, or season tickets to the Lakers games. There is plenty of incentive for people to go out and work even though they are getting a UBI.

 

[rjs330]

submit that it is the other way around. There are some who will not work hard, and there are lots of people that do work hard. The mistake is thinking that the super-rich are the only ones who work hard, or that they work hard at all. Similarly it is a mistake to identify the poor as those whose do not work hard. I seriously doubt if Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk work as hard as the nurses in our hospitals or the man who drives the Amazon delivery truck in our neighborhood.

Who made the point that it's only the rich who work hard? I certainly didn't. I simply pointed our there are people who work hard and people who don't. Who said the poor don't work hard?

If the poor are not working full time or working at all then they aren't working working hard are they?

You make a HUGE error in thinking that people like Bezos do t work as hard as nurses. Physical labor is not the only method if working hard. That's just silly.

And our system rewards people for working hard, pursuing the dream, those that are forward thinkers, those with particular skills or talents. It's not a system that guarantees the same outcome for everyone. Because not everyone pursues the same thing.

You sound butter towards the rich. Thinking that somehow they got lucky. Bollocks. UBI rewards the lazy because it pays you whether or not you are working or not. It doesn't matter how many hours you put inz or what job you choose. And as we have seen a lot of Americans CHOSE not to work, but collect unemployment as long as they could.

 

[rjs330]

Right. A government program. UBI would also be a government program.


I know UBI would be administered differently from unemployment, but that is no reason to declare UBI invalid or immoral or whatever it is you are declaring it. So far your best argument is the fact that it would be hard to afford a UBI program given the current funding. That is a problem. But just a practical problem, not a moral problem.


As I said, very few people will be content to stay at home and collect the UBI if they are able to go out and work and make even more money in addition to his UBI. That way they might be able to afford a jet ski that they could never afford on his UBI alone. Likewise for a Cancun vacation, or season tickets to the Lakers games. There is plenty of incentive for people to go out and work even though they are getting a UBI.

UBI is not a temporary program to lend a helping hand when a person happens to fall on hard times due to unforseen circumstances or circumstances beyond their control. It is NOT the same thing as unployment or disability programs.

UBI is a fool's gold errand. It's unaffordable and untenable. And it rewards the lazy. It's immoral because you are demanding other people give you their hard earned money so you can buy a jet ski. It's nothing more than covetousness.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Who made the point that it's only the rich who work hard? I certainly didn't. I simply pointed our there are people who work hard and people who don't. Who said the poor don't work hard?

The rest of my comment that had nothing to do with the poor was that most people do work hard and will continue to work hard even with a UBI. Your response does not address this fact.

If the poor are not working full time or working at all then they aren't working working hard are they?

But that described very few people. Not enough to worry about.

You make a HUGE error in thinking that people like Bezos do t work as hard as nurses. Physical labor is not the only method if working hard. That's just silly.

Nope. I stand by my claim. Nurses work harder than Bezos - especially during this pandemic. We reward Bezos in this system not because he works hard but because he is lucky.

And our system rewards people for working hard.

Not nearly as much as our system rewards being lucky.

You sound butter towards the rich.

Not at all. I think the rich, like Elon Musk, would be the first to admit that they don't work as hard as some others who do not earn as much as him. Did you know Elon Musk expects that we will need to have a UBI?

Thinking that somehow they got lucky. Bollocks.

That's no response. If luck played no part it getting rich then anyone could do it who wanted to. And believe me, many more people want to than do.

UBI rewards the lazy because it pays you whether or not you are working or not.

Actually, unemployment encourages laziness more than UBI, because if you get a good job you have to give up your unemployment, which is a disincentive for getting a job. But not so with a UBI because of the letter 'U'. That means you continue to get your UBI even if you do get a good job. So there is no reason to let an opportunity for a good job pass you by.

It doesn't matter how many hours you put inz or what job you choose.

Yes it does matter, because if you put in more hours at a job, even with a UBI, you still get even more money from that job.

And as we have seen a lot of Americans CHOSE not to work.

Preceding an unsupportable claim by the words "As we have seen" isn't fooling anyone. In this case, the claim following those words is false.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It's immoral because you are demanding other people give you their hard earned money so you can buy a jet ski.

Nope. Actions of a legitimate authority acting in the common good can moral direct funds to any good cause. It happens all the time in practically every program that government undertakes when that program benefits some people and not others. One example: City government builds a playground with basketball courts for kids to play in. It is paid for with taxes that everyone pays - even people with no kids and no interest in playing basketball. It that "demanding that other people give those kids their hard earned money"? I'm sure you can think of even more examples if you try. Government spends money. It is not necessarily immoral.

 

[rjs330]

But that described very few people. Not enough to worry about.

Then we don't need UBI.

Nope. I stand by my claim. Nurses work harder than Bezos - especially during this pandemic. We reward Bezos in this system not because he works hard but because he is lucky.

You keep saying the rich are lucky. You have no idea. The rich aren't lucky. Certainly not by and large. They are just willing to do what it takes to get there. Which means a lot of things. And most of it takes work and discipline and pursuing the paths that get you there. And NONE of it is easy. You have ZERO idea of what you are talking about.

How do you get rich? Here's what 177 self-made millionaires told me

I spent 5 years analyzing how rich people get rich — and found there are generally 4 paths to wealth

The Wealthy Just Work Harder Than Everyone Else - Rich Habits

Do the Rich Work Harder Than Everyone Else?

You just are coming off as jealous.

Truth is most people aren't rich because they are not willing to do what it takes to get rich. Like me. I'm not rich. I work hard, but I'm not willing to do what it takes to be a millionaire. I'm not that interested in doing those things.

 

[Pommer]

And it rewards the lazy. It's immoral because you are demanding other people give you their hard earned money so you can buy a jet ski. It's nothing more than covetousness.

The lazy are going to be lazy no matter the system we use though. Maybe the lazy will seek new avenues of expression besides being Netflix subscribers?

 

[rjs330]

Nope. Actions of a legitimate authority acting in the common good can moral direct funds to any good cause. It happens all the time in practically every program that government undertakes when that program benefits some people and not others. One example: City government builds a playground with basketball courts for kids to play in. It is paid for with taxes that everyone pays - even people with no kids and no interest in playing basketball. It that "demanding that other people give those kids their hard earned money"? I'm sure you can think of even more examples if you try. Government spends money. It is not necessarily immoral.

Not the same thing at all.

 

[Sunshinee777]

I don’t like the idea. Everyone should have opportunity to work and be paid based on how much they work and I would prefer also ”how well” they work. Like you could be paid more if you do your job well. And the ones not doing it well enough would be paid less.

 

[Sunshinee777]

And our system rewards people for working hard, pursuing the dream, those that are forward thinkers, those with particular skills or talents. It's not a system that guarantees the same outcome for everyone. Because not everyone pursues the same thing.

Not in Finland no.
There is no support in Finland for enterpreneurs for example. And they have been making it impossible to even start a proper business here because unnessecary rules and bureaucracy.
Constantly destroying already weak economy.

 

[trophy33]

From the article you posted.

Although public policy is changing in Germany – for example, there are now more full-time nursery places available – prevailing attitudes still leave many German women with the feeling that they must choose between work and family.

It also talks about women having to work part time with lower pay and fewer benefits. So the article does not support your conclusions that things are so much better over there.

And free college isn't all that great either over there. There is rationing of students, high drop out rates and restrictions.

Free College in Europe: A Cautionary Tale for the United States


European countries that offer tuition-free higher education also struggle with the issue of completion. Finland, for example, ranks first among all Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in terms of subsidies for higher education, with 96% of all higher education funding coming from public sources. However, Finland ranks 25th among OECD countries for degree attainment.

Finland offers a nice deal for students only if they are lucky and talented enough to get in. In 2016, Finnish institutions of higher education accepted just 33 percent of applicants. That’s the degree of selectivity we’d expect from an elite college in America, yet that is the admissions rate for Finland’s entire university system. There is a price to pay for that kind of selectivity: Finland ranks in the bottom third of developed countries for college-degree attainment. Meanwhile, the tuition-charging United States ranks in the top third, thanks to open-enrollment policies at many of our colleges and universities, along with private financing and plenty of spots offered through a diverse range of institutions.

There are other things too line students still graduating with a lot of debt. They don't get to study whatever they want. There are a lot of issues that you don't seem to be aware of.

No, College Is Not “Free” in Europe – It’s Expensive and Broken

I know you live socialism. And it all sounds very nice. Free stuff. How awesome. But its not free, it creates other problems and is not the panecea you make it out to be.

I am not sure what you think is the problem... that everybody takes the chance to study and then later drop when they found out its not for them? Why is it a problem?

Or, better said, why is it a bigger problem than not to allow common people to study if they have no money? Or to give them "student loans" for life, practically, if they want to study something more complex.

Can any child from a ghetto in the USA become a doctor for free? If not, there is very low social mobility in your country and barriers to grow up from one's social background.

 

[trophy33]

There are other things too line students still graduating with a lot of debt. They don't get to study whatever they want. There are a lot of issues that you don't seem to be aware of.

Yes, there are tests when applying to Universities or other types of schools, but its common, is it not? The capacity of any school is limited. But the restriction is not financial, thats the point.

I have studied at two Universities so you can ask me specific question you may have.

The last two years were not free for me, because I studied longer, having two Universities. So I paid amount equal to 2 monthly average incomes for one school year as a tuition. Still pretty cheap.

 

[rjs330]

Also UBI is immoral because it takes money (income) from one person who earned it to another person (s) who didn't.

Once we enter the realm of the ability of one group to demand from another their income because mine is not as high as theirs we have given too much power to the "whole" rather than the individual. Because if it is a right that everyone have a roof over their head we can then demand that someone build someone else a home. Force them to. We are compelling people to provide for others rather than live their lives as they see fit.

The Immorality of Universal Basic Income - The Objective Standard

And we are talking about income. Not a basketball court.

 

[rjs330]

Preceding an unsupportable claim by the words "As we have seen" isn't fooling anyone. In this case, the claim following those words is false.

Nope Americans have and do stay home rather than work when provided and income.

How the New Era of Expanded Welfare Programs is Keeping Americans from Working

Remember in the 90s the welfare to work? That was because Americans were rather living on Welfare rather than working.

No not everyone does this. But a rather significant amount does and will.

1.8M Americans turned down jobs due to unemployment benefits

At some point you are going to have to admit I'm right on this stuff. I have the information to back my claims.

 

[rjs330]

I am not sure what you think is the problem... that everybody takes the chance to study and then later drop when they found out its not for them? Why is it a problem?

Or, better said, why is it a bigger problem than not to allow common people to study if they have no money? Or to give them "student loans" for life, practically, if they want to study something more complex.

Can any child from a ghetto in the USA become a doctor for free? If not, there is very low social mobility in your country and barriers to grow up from one's social background.

Thanks for your opinion. Becauae poor people here can become doctors.

"Common" people can go to school here. They can even get worthless degrees.if they want. It's called freedom to do what you want and study what you want. But with maximum freedom comes maximum responsibility.

And people here can drop out too if they want. But they are not being told they can't go to school and can't study what they want. Like in the EU.

Your free college isn't really all as great as some would like to make out. It's getting harder and harder for your governments to fund the bills. Which then further restricts people.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, there are tests when applying to Universities or other types of schools, but its common, is it not? The capacity of any school is limited. But the restriction is not financial, thats the point.

Nope, that's not accurate. Universities over there are restricted precisely because of the cost.

Finland offers a nice deal for students only if they are lucky and talented enough to get in. In 2016, Finnish institutions of higher education accepted just 33 percent of applicants. That’s the degree of selectivity we’d expect from an elite college in America, yet that is the admissions rate for Finland’s entire university system. There is a price to pay for that kind of selectivity: Finland ranks in the bottom third of developed countries for college-degree attainment. Meanwhile, the tuition-charging United States ranks in the top third, thanks to open-enrollment policies at many of our colleges and universities, along with private financing and plenty of spots offered through a diverse range of institutions.

This is due to the cost.

None of this is to say that college isn't too expensive. It is, but the answer is not always let's get the government to make it free.

It seems like you are really find of getting "free" stuff. Maybe we should have free money, free education, free medical, free housing, free food, free cars, free gas, free utilities, free electric cars, free electricity.

I just don't know where we are going to get all this money for all the free stuff.

 

[Sunshinee777]

I just don't know where we are going to get all this money for all the free stuff

People live with banks money (debt) and it will lead to economic collapse which is not far away actually.