No.

Well kind of, UBI is the bedrock which we find acceptable for people to live.

You can still work and earn more money that UBI.

You can choose not to get the UBI bennifits.

To be honest you know what Id be more okay with?

WEll, nevermind

That would be impossible for the forseeable future

It depends on how large you start it out as .

Lets say we start it out at $1,000 a month.

Mind if I state my issues though?

Sure.

My issue is that the populace would get complacent. Why work if everything is provided, you remove all ambition.

But population changes would fix that

You can get everything you need for 1,000 a month?

We have ghettoes in the US where they live in hell.

But prefer that to having to work for a living or get an education

Yes and many of them are stuck on welfare.

Doesn't that devalue low wage work further? Like the baseline for living is 1k, and you get that no matter what. Why would you work full time for minimum wage unless minimum wage was drastically increased (which is infeasible)

And don't find a job because they don't want to lose welfare.

Second issue.

I think that very much has to do with how welfare incentives work

Jobs would have to pay you a significantly higher wage than the UBI provides.

Why would it need to be increased.

1k and 100% freetime, vs half the time, and anything below 3k for example

You're getting 1k a month reguardless of what you do.

Because who is going to work full time for a job that is only a few degrees more valuable than doing fuck all?

Also when does UBI kick in?

UBI is universal

All of the time.

Regardless of your situation, at the very least it will provide for the basics

Next, there are some services that are not consistent. Living quarter rent for example.

Doesn't that exacerbate the fundie Mormon scenario?

Can society expect to provide say, the same accomodation to everyone at that level of it.

Lets say your disabled, and you're getting 1,200 a month, you're starting to feel better but you still need help. would you be willing to risk your 1,200 a month?

Youd still get 1.2k though right?

No if you start working you lose it.

BUt isnt UBI always on?

Ah, but here's the thing you could switch to UBI from disablity, and get the 1,000 and a part time job.

But would that still make it UBI>

But the UBI wouldn't go away disability can be taken away.

Well heres the issue I have with a pure meritocratic society

That would mean that theres always a group of "absoulute zeroes"

Yes.

So theres charity. Or welfare.

Correct.

And the use of either is heavily dependent on culture.

Sorry, the reliability of either

okayy

Well how I see welfare is "We cant trust society to take care of its weakest so we do it for you"

Enforced charity.

THat is not to say that it is wrong.

As everyone has different standards as to who needs help

UBI can cover everyone. But there will always be people who will need alot more than UBI provides to live.

Yes.

Welfare programs would still exist to help those that need more.

And well, I can go on, I have spent alot of time thinking. And I am generally very much against any idea of govt controll.

So stuff like charity vs welfare, govt vs private.

It's not government control.

Well, dependence on the govt then

It would be money given by the government but with no restrictions on it.

Okay.

okay where were we

It's still government control at the end of the day

The money comes from somewhere

And government is not a revenue generator

government revenue is taxpayer money

Yes.

Why should the taxpayer be expected to pay into an equity system?

It's not an equity system.

basic income,

The bottom is equity

It is literally redistribution of wealth, just on a small scale

Its equal opportunity. If the govt gets its revenue from something other than tax

It's not opportunity, it's outcome

So you're against welfare?

Im only against how its implemented now.

Right now its just a really easy way to get votes at the expense of taxpayers

As a rule, yes

That said, i can sympathise with those that can't provide for their own due to debilitation,
Hence i'm okay with essential welfare

but like ginga said

Not as a means to buy votes

I think any safety net should be minimized, and dissolved if a better alternative emerges outside of government provided means

Okay, well it is my proposal that this would be a viable option for those that wish to leave welfare and re-enter the work force.

The system now is okay, its just too corrupt.

No drug testing on applicants.

that is the whole idea behind welfare, a safety net to help people get back on track

The issue is "good luck getting people to work if they're comfortable"

Drug testing is costly and ineffective.

And the definition of "actively searching for employment" is rather easy to spoof

Which is the issue, we have no idea to proove that they are spending welfare on what its meant for.

And dont forget the sugar industry push to stop the ban on being able to buy soft drinks with food stamps

There's a bigger issue with UBI: It'll create a class of people who depend heavily on state income.

They'll have literally nothing better to do but complain they need more. It'll be the G7 protests daily.

Okay, well I don't care if they're actively looking or not, so there's that.

There is alot of lobbying and politics in welfare as it is now.

When it should be an apolitical position

Plus, you'd have issues of what is a "sustainable income"

Why wouldn't you, if they're receiving money for it?

NYC is much, much more than upstate.

Ginga, theres lobbying in politics for ENTERTAINMENT 😛

I never said it would be sustainable at first.

I said 1,000 a month.

So the NYC'ers will complain they need more UBI and the upstaters would be swamped. Probably not do anything at all.

1000 a month is nothing in NYC. It'll barely have any effect.

Yes.