Message from @Dennafen
Discord ID: 472091870101635076
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.
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?