• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would/do you support a Universal Basic Income for all U.S. citizens?

Would/do you support a Universal Basic Income for all U.S. citizens?

  • Total voters
    90
X Factor

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,670
Reaction score
32,295
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I try to keep commentary out of my poll choices, but my own personal opinion would be best expressed as "Oh, hell no".
 
X Factor said:
I try to keep commentary out of my poll choices, but my own personal opinion would be best expressed as "Oh, hell no".
Click to expand...

I would've voted "Oh, hell no", if it had been an option.
 
It will never be enough. "Idle hands are the devils workshop". People simply are not psychologically designed to sit on their asses and be fed like animals in a zoo.

Then we have the "underground economy" where services are performed for cash.
 
I would have voted "Oh, hell no" as well. There is just so much wrong with this. People should be rewarded for hard work and not stuck at a universal income. This also removes incentive to produce. We would end up like Venezuela, with people squatting on abandoned construction sites and a crime rate through the roof.
 
countryboy said:
I would've voted "Oh, hell no", if it had been an option.
Click to expand...

I considered that along with just a regular "no" but I didn't want to split the vote. :lol:
 
X Factor said:
This guarantees an income for every single citizen, including children. The current argument in favor is that automation is costing people jobs.

Here's a relatively recent article on the debate.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/25/universal-basic-income-debate-sharpens.html

So what do you think? Would you support it? Attaching poll.
Click to expand...

No. I think there are better ways to deal with automation in the direction of increasing livability and pursuit of fulfillment for people, that don't require such a heavy dependence on such an incredibly powerful government.

That's simply too much survival ability taken away from the people for me to ever be comfortable with it. A self-serving government forcing its desires is then as simple as a budget shut-down that suddenly leaves millions unable to eat. Absolute power corrupts absolutely...
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No. I think there are better ways to deal with automation in the direction of increasing livability and pursuit of enjoyment for people, that don't require such a heavy dependence on such an incredibly powerful government.

That's simply too much survival ability taken away from the people for me to ever be comfortable with it. A self-serving government getting its way is then as simple as a shut-down that suddenly leaves millions unable to eat. Absolute power corrupts absolutely...
Click to expand...

True. There's too many dependent on the government as it is. I'm reminded of this every time there's all this fear over a potential govt shut down.

The power this would give over people's lives is something I hadn't even really thought of.
 
X Factor said:
This guarantees an income for every single citizen, including children. The current argument in favor is that automation is costing people jobs.

Here's a relatively recent article on the debate.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/25/universal-basic-income-debate-sharpens.html

So what do you think? Would you support it? Attaching poll.
Click to expand...
I would. I don't have to read the article. If Wall street can get the government to write a trillion dollars check, why not for regular people on main Street?

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
UBI of some variety will probably be necessary in the future; either that and/or massive infrastructure investment to shore up employment and give people money to spend due to the long term impacts of globalization and automation. Personally I favour a blend of UBI and infrastructure jobs or UBI with infrastructure work as a condition of receipt for those of able body and mind (there's a lot of work to be done in terms of telecom, roads, bridges, rail and other basic infrastructure both in terms of construction and maintenance).
 
Eventually yes, I see it as an inevitability.

Honestly, I think it would free people up to do more of a variety of things, and it would encourage creativity. Especially when our economy becomes more autonomous.
 
Your Star said:
Eventually yes, I see it as an inevitability.

Honestly, I think it would free people up to do more of a variety of things, and it would encourage creativity. Especially when our economy becomes more autonomous.
Click to expand...

Certainly. Gives people the opportunity to pursue an education or entrepreneurship without the very reasonable fear of financial ruination hanging over them, which means they're much more likely to do so; one of its many advantages.
 
Absolutely not. It is completely financially unsustainable and ridiculous.
 
Your Star said:
Eventually yes, I see it as an inevitability.

Honestly, I think it would free people up to do more of a variety of things, and it would encourage creativity. Especially when our economy becomes more autonomous.
Click to expand...

Yes, but is a government stipend really the best way to do that? Is giving the government total control over whether you live or die really the best idea?

Lowering the work week, paying better, and automating mindless tasks still accomplishes the same goal of allowing people to ultimately pursue a passion, or volunteer work, or other forms of work that give humans a true sense of purpose, like hands-on tasks and community efforts.

But it allows them to still retain control of their survival.

If the government puts food on everyone's table, all you need is one salty politician to block the yearly budget, and people will starve.
 
Last edited:
Under certain conditions potentially

First and foremost anyone who can do some work would be required to do something. From sweeping the streets, to pulling weeds, to helping staff daycares, to manning support lines for government computer and phone services. No sitting around collecting an income doing nothing. Don't report to work duty that day no pay for that day. People will be encourage to find regular work jobs and any money over the min guarantee amount would be clawed back at a 50% basis. For every dollar above the amount earned 0.5 is taken back.

This replaces all other forms of welfare

For the truly disabled (those unable to do anything at all would be excluded from the work requirement
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes, but is a government stipend really the best way to do that? Is giving the government total control over whether you live or die really the best idea?

Lowering the work week and paying better accomplishes the same goal of allowing people to ultimately pursue a passion, or volunteer work, or other forms of work that give humans true sense of purpose, like hands-on tasks and community efforts.

But it allows them to still retain control of their survival.

If the government puts food on everyone's table, all you need is one salty politician to block the yearly budget, and people will starve.
Click to expand...

That's already true for existing welfare programs; there is already presently the risk that some asshole politico can deny funds/benefits that someone needs to live.

Also, most forms of UBI don't prevent people from working to earn additional money. In fact it may encourage work seeking, including entrepreneurship, more than traditional welfare schemes since it often doesn't involve the typical 'welfare trap' where a substantial chunks of benefits are clawed back with income (or the clawback is so gradual as to be nigh irrelevant in terms of adversely impacting behaviour).
 
Your Star said:
Eventually yes, I see it as an inevitability.

Honestly, I think it would free people up to do more of a variety of things, and it would encourage creativity. Especially when our economy becomes more autonomous.
Click to expand...

How many creative ways are there to watch TV?
 
Surrealistik said:
That's already true for existing welfare programs; there is already presently the risk that some asshole politico can deny funds/benefits that someone needs to live.

Also, UBI doesn't prevent people from working to earn additional money. In fact it may encourage work seeking, including entrepreneurship more than traditional welfare schemes since it doesn't involve the typical 'welfare trap' where benefits are clawed back with income.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't see how making that issue 100 times more severe is good.

With a government stipend, I guarantee you jobs will pay far less. Realistically, they will pay less than survival requirements, because they can.

Most people are simply not entrepreneur material. And they shouldn't be punished with potential starvation for that fact.

This is too much government control. It is scarily close to feudalism.

Let's remember that the only reason America has survived what it has is because its system is built to be able withstand politicians behaving at their worst. UBI would completely destroy that and leave us vulnerable to even the slightest corruption.

We can achieve all the same benefits to humanity without creating this massive potential for corruption.
 
X Factor said:
This guarantees an income for every single citizen, including children. The current argument in favor is that automation is costing people jobs.

Here's a relatively recent article on the debate.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/25/universal-basic-income-debate-sharpens.html

So what do you think? Would you support it? Attaching poll.
Click to expand...

I don't know, to be honest. It flies completely against my basic ideology of fiscal conservatism, and personal responsibility. However, there are a number of people, including our own cpwill here at DP, that make a very compelling argument from both a fiscally conservative standpoint and a social responsibility viewpoint. Compelling, but not compelling enough for me to agree to paying someone for being born and then continuing to breathe.

If you'd like to get in the weeds on this, PM cpwill and get him to log on to this thread.

Edit - when given the opportunity, I'll always vote for the squirrel. I'm in the club.

412HoM51WiL.jpg
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes, but is a government stipend really the best way to do that? Is giving the government total control over whether you live or die really the best idea?

Lowering the work week and paying better accomplishes the same goal of allowing people to ultimately pursue a passion, or volunteer work, or other forms of work that give humans true sense of purpose, like hands-on tasks and community efforts.

But it allows them to still retain control of their survival.

If the government puts food on everyone's table, all you need is one salty politician to block the yearly budget, and people will starve.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. There's a real possibility that there won't be enough jobs for everyone in the next 10-15 years. Truck driving is one of the biggest jobs in the country, and the second companies can replace their human drivers with automated trucks, it will happen. What do we do with those people? Say good luck to 'em?

That's just not viable. I see this less as the government putting food on everyone's table, and more of the government ensuring that people don't go below a certain quality of life. I don't envision a lot of people quitting their jobs to just live off of a UBI. At the end of the day people are proud and want to work. They want to do something productive with their lives, and I think it will end up being a net positive for the country whenever it does happen.
 
Your Star said:
Perhaps. There's a real possibility that there won't be enough jobs for everyone in the next 10-15 years. Truck driving is one of the biggest jobs in the country, and the second companies can replace their human drivers with automated trucks, it will happen. What do we do with those people? Say good luck to 'em?

That's just not viable. I see this less as the government putting food on everyone's table, and more of the government ensuring that people don't go below a certain quality of life. I don't envision a lot of people quitting their jobs to just live off of a UBI. At the end of the day people are proud and want to work. They want to do something productive with their lives, and I think it will end up being a net positive for the country whenever it does happen.
Click to expand...

But that changes when you cut the work week while pay rises. You would need more employees for the same number of total company work hours.

You would also have MORE of certain kinds of jobs. Stuff humans actually like doing, like independent crafters, small businesses, community leaders, etc.

UBI, on the other hand, would send wages through the floor. I guarantee it. Companies only pay what they have to, and if they can get away with paying less because the government picks up the slack, they will. They aren't concerned about whether their employees then become vulnerable to government corruption. They just care about their shareholders.

I will grant you that my way is more of a fight. But we have watched government corrupt all over the world over and over again. And UBI is a recipe for disaster. The fight is worth it for a safer, better-off country that is less vulnerable to almost instantaneous humanitarian disaster.

Compare UBI to feudalism and tell me they don't look just a little too similar for comfort.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes, but I don't see how making that issue 100 times more severe is good.

With a government stipend, I guarantee you jobs will pay far less. Realistically, they will pay less than survival requirements, because they can.

Most people are simply not entrepreneur material. And they shouldn't be punished with potential starvation for that fact.

This is too much government control. It is scarily close to feudalism.

Let's remember that the only reason America has survived what it has is because its system is built to be able withstand politicians behaving at their worst. UBI would completely destroy that and leave us vulnerable to even the slightest corruption.

We can achieve all the same benefits to humanity without creating this massive potential for corruption.
Click to expand...

Or will jobs pay more because you can't get people to sacrifice time that could be spent on other endeavours unless you pay something half decent because their basic needs are covered and they don't need to take bad jobs for **** pay out of desperation? I don't think it's nearly a given that jobs will pay less as a consequence of UBI.

Second, if the job market is robust enough that UBI isn't necessary, great; but that ignores the fundamental rationale behind the conception and deployment of UBI: namely massive and unprecedented (save for something like say the Great Depression) losses in jobs due to automation/outsourcing; a large surplus of labour relative to jobs (which in turn means cascading deflationary/disinflationary pressures on the wages/benefits of remaining jobs not subject to automation/outsourcing). In such a case, you'd be hard pressed to fill that gap by alternate means. Furthermore, if UBI was indeed necessary as a consequence of this, it would be political suicide for a politico to arrest or otherwise kill UBI funding, nevermind the possibility of structuring UBI such that it could withstand say government shutdowns (reserves) or even constitutional enshrinement if the situation were particularly bad.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
Or will jobs pay more because you can't get people to sacrifice time that could be spent on other endeavours unless you pay something half decent because their basic needs are covered? I don't think it's nearly a given that jobs will pay less as a consequence of UBI.

Second, if the job market is robust enough that UBI isn't necessary, great; but that ignores the fundamental rationale behind the conception and deployment UBI: namely massive and unprecedented (save for something like say the Great Depression) losses in jobs due to automation/outsourcing. In such a case, you'd be hard pressed to fill that gap by alternate means. Furthermore, if UBI was indeed necessary as a consequence of this, it would be political suicide for a politico to arrest or otherwise kill UBI funding, nevermind the possibility of structuring UBI such that it could withstand say government shutdowns (reserves) or even constitutional enshrinement if the situation were particularly bad.
Click to expand...

No, they'll just spend that same money automating more stuff. Because at the end of the day, the jobs humans don't want to do are the sorts of jobs we're automating... because humans don't want to do them.

Like I said above, if you cut hours while pay rises, then you need more employees to work the same number of total company hours. That would fill this gap as certain industries transition.

And what sort of power would the people have to protest when the government could starve most of them with a simple delayed budget, without even overturning UBI?

None. You cannot have power when the person threatening you is the only means of survival you have.
 
I heard a good debate once about switching over to a UBI as an alternative to our current welfare system and it was a fairly good argument. If implemented correctly it would be drastically better than the current system. I just wonder how it would be possible to fund it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom