Should be done everywhere and for everyone. Can you imagine a society where you don't have to work just to be able to live? The projects you would pursue, how way less power would bad managers and bosses have? It would also help decentralization from big cities as people wouldn't be forced to move there to get jobs.

Also I never realized the toll finances were taking on my stress and mental health until I reached some kind of financial stability. No one should have to endure that much stress just to be able to live.

Yes, I support it. Science has shown the government can afford it and it will save them money in the long run. If society has the resources to ensure everyone's basic needs are met, do it.

The argument against it is that people won't work if they aren't forced to. I think people want to work. This would enable people to have their basic needs met first so they can build a career comfortably.

I believe it should happen and I believe it eventually will happen in Canada, but it will take a lot longer than it should.

UBI needs to be combined with rent and price controls if it is not, inflation will eat the benefits inside of a 5-year period and money will be siphoned up the chain.

Otherwise I am all for it.

im FOR IT

I support it and think it could work. It would make people more happy and free, while removing a lot of unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy from our current welfare system.

I agree we need a universal basic income, I refer to it as "automation compensation". It only works if corporations and investors are banned from owning residential homes. Also we need to construct an abundance of efficient high rises to ensure there's more than enough availability. In order for basic necessities like housing, electricity, water, and food are met, we need the infrastructure plan to guarantee availability. Otherwise, a UBI will just drive up costs because owners and sellers will account for that extra money people can spend.

Yes. When 10 people control more wealth than the rest of us combined while families working 60+ hours a week cant put food on the table. Then yes, the system is rigged against the middle class and we deserve a fighting chance

The study results look really promising. I think it would be an amazing thing for society as a whole. I just also think it won’t happen because (some) humans get really bent out of shape when they think others are suffering less than they think they should be suffering.

Yes, but it needs to be paired with an aggressive ban on any form of rent-seeking.

I think it's a great idea.

We are the wealthiest culture ever, we can afford it.

It would zero out most crime.

Fighting to survive is beneath us.

Against both because I'm a communist against income and because its almost always paired with eliminating almost all help programs and with a suggested amount that when those two are combined will arguably make things worse for those in the most need,

I think I'd rather see a realistic minimum wage. But regardless of UBI or min wage, none of it will be worth much if things like medical care, education, child care, housing costs, etc. don't get brought under control. The leeches will just jack up prices for more record profits.

My opinion is that our politicians would prefer fascism.

tax the rich, feed the poor, subsidize birth control.

it would allow me to try earning money or study without worrying about being punished for failing

I've recently starting thinking about current artists, specifically musicians. A current crop of them come from money. I'll use the example of Gracie Abrams, daughter of JJ Abrams. IMHO, she is definitely talented but she got her leg up from her dad being in the entertainment industry and, more importantly, never had to worry about money. How many other artists and musicians are we not hearing about because they didn't come from money. She is one example of many.

I am a firm believer in UBI. Basic sustenance income should be available to everyone. That wouldn't solve this problem, but it certainly would give a chance for someone with artistic talent to work on their art and while still being able to survive.

Someone else may be able to come up with a more concise and better worded argument for it, but the way we've implemented private ownership/use of natural resources seems pretty shitty. Especially considering how many people have been screwed over and how much damage is often done in the process.

Owning something that existed long before people, and would have continued to exist if we've never evolved, seems suspect in general. While there's value in the labor involved in extracting or preparing these resources for use, the material itself wasn't created by anyone and should belong to everyone in some way.

A portion of the income derived from the exploitation of all natural resources should be redistributed as UBI.

Once AI doesn't pan out as the savior of the planet, they'll pivot to go all in on robotics, and lots of people are going to lose jobs. When there's a permanent unemployment rate of 30% or more, society will be faced with 2 choices - UBI, or a reduction in the population.

Which solution do you think each party will embrace?

I have made the argument to the "think of the economy" Republicans I have known for years, and come at it from a relatively heartless angle:

With automation (and now AI), it takes less and less humans to do the work. Not everybody can "start their own business," obviously, and when self-driving vehicles that don't require a human driver become effective and accepted, about 70 million jobs will disappear in a blink. And those won't be shifted to another industry, because it doesn't take 70 million people to code and maintain self-driving vehicles. And that is just the people who drive for a living. So either a significant chunk of the population is unemployed and can't buy things or live anymore without significant help from the government anyway, or everybody works less hours (and still paid a living wage) to spread out the available work hours.

If there is a UBI that effectively covers shelter and food, then people would need to work less to pay for other necessities and what luxuries they can afford. If everybody gets it, it is completely fair.

And you do this by taxing the shit out any automation (enough that the business still gets a benefit, but so does the society they are taking jobs from), and taxing billionaires.

This isn't about taking care of the sick or poor, or providing handouts, it's about maintaining society with the rise of automation, and it not being possible without it.

Those I spoke to were remarkably receptive to that argument.

Progressive taxation rate that can go negative (aka people can receive money) is more fair.

Could even be easier to implement because it is not only a "social" benefit that cost tax payers money. That could help convince some people.

I have a moderately strong opinion. I used to be very pro full minimum wage UBI until I calculated how much it actually costs and realised that it's more than the entire budget of my country.

I feel like there's a lot of benefit in a BUI system though, a $500 a month UBI is a substantial difference for people, prevents starvation and so on. It should be done in increments.

Currently the everyone in Iceland gets a tax break of around $400 on the first income they make, this amount should be directly deposited to everyone instead as a start and have it renamed as "Basic assistance" or something.

Then since you already have a payout scheme you add in all other benefits that essentially modify the amount such as disabilities, unemployment, maternity, child support payments, retirement and so on.

Having a unified payment scheme and just checking if people are eligible for benefits is less beaurocracy than having each institution handle payments each month.

UBI is great, but First there's gotta be separate publicly-funded social nets for essentials like food, housing, water, electricity, heating...

Giving everyone $5000/mo to buy everything you want and need is far too volatile, and with poor budgeting people will end up trapped in debt spirals, needing microfinance loans to survive. I'd rather the government give $1000/mo to buy everything you want, then having public services to provide food, rent, and other necessities.

I fear that giving free-range UBI on its own will spawn a bunch of extreme examples that get disseminated en-masse by reactionary outlets to breed resentment of UBI and "handouts" in the eyes of the people. You'll have folks who are physically and/or mentally ill, who spend the whole allowance on drugs or gambling or porn or other controversial expenditures; then have to turn to charity to survive until their next UBI check. I'd need to know people would have that stable base before I'd feel comfortable with them being thrown that rope.

This is coming from seeing decades of USA arguments against welfare, then watching the "For The Children" fearmongering against the open internet. I just don't want a few extreme examples to have us all strung up.

My strong opinion is that anyone born into a progressive society is entitled to food, clothing and shelter. The bare minimum you need to survive. There are too many holes in the middle of most towns and cities nowadays with the "Corporation Corners" on the outskirts sucking up all the money that used to flow inward.

It would make many people more happy and less stressed, so why shouldn’t we do it?

I strongly think we should have it. The money isn't trickling down, so we need to forcibly re-distribute it.

Only works if we limit the amount of wealth single persons are allowed to hoard.

I say that anyone with a networth over 10M should have all other income over that taxed 100%

Same for companies, cap them at 1 billion

This will allow capitalism yet spread the wealth

Yes, this requires more details, of course, but this should be a basic rule. There is no right to own more than 10 million in wealth

Conceptually I'm 100% for it. In reality I'm sure theres going to be unintended consequences that im not seeing.

If it can be made to work like it sounds like it should, we need it and we need it bad.

I think that focusing everything on UBI and dismantling all other forms of welfare are going to create massive inequalities in society that few people anticipate.

For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if there are effectively UBI free zones in some major metros with decent economies.

It's necessary for the next step in human society in a post scarcity world

it's definitely better than nothing, but it's more like a mitigation than a solution. it will need to continually chase some sort of cost of living index

It took me a while to come around to the idea. I believed in small American business long after it was dead. Always suspected that we would eventually regulate in favor of it again.

After studying the financial engineering done from 2008-2025 and the immense wealth concentration it created I think UBI helps the problem. As wages become more suppressed and jobs become fewer, we do need to examine our social safety nets again.

I think the only thing I disagree with about UBI is that all of us become somewhat dependent on the government. Will that make us more active participants in government? Currently, most people’s retirement funds are based on the S&P 500, and when it comes time to vote, they will always vote to protect their retirement funds in the S&P 500. This is part of the trap. We’ve been dealing with it during the financial engineering of the last two decades.

UBI would certainly strip powers from some and give some dignity back to many, but it becomes a beast in itself that must be managed with the integrity that our country hasn’t been managed with for decades. So idk! I think they need to figure out universal healthcare before universal basic income. One will help structure the other.

Of all the capitalists bitching about higher taxes and how UBI will destroy businesses, they keep forgetting that people are more willing to buy shit when they don't have to worry about rent.

Yup - I'm for it, in a very specific combination. A universal basic income that is regularly recalculated to ensure that it provides for all basic needs, connected with a flat tax on any income earned through other means and an abolishment of the minimum wage. What it means: taxes become much simpler, the vast majority of people don't need to do them at all. Employers only advertise with net income, so you immediately know what you're getting at the end of the week/month. Since there is no minimum wage (and since one isn't necessary any more due to everyone having their basic needs covered), the economy is more inclusive, since jobs that don't attract as much money but still benefit society like being a musician can be done that much more. Employees have more power since losing their job doesn't mean the threat of losing the ability to afford necessities, meaning they also have a stronger position at the bargaining table.

Yeah. I should definitely get it, and a lot of it. In fact, more than the rest of most scrubs. Ill do cool ass shit. I already do cool shit, and with more money, I could do more and even cooler shit.

Sponsor my cool shit and I will give you cool shit in return. DM me for my cash app.

I have two strong opinions about basic income.

I'll be retired and collecting a government cheque lot before we get it in Canada.

I am 100% behind a basic income.

We should not have UBI as that implicitly continues the need for money. Instead we should work towards a world with Universal Basic Resources, or even not so basic resources, if it can be automated.

I like negative income tax better. Basically you declare an amount that is the basic amount someone can live on, I.e. £20k and if you earn less than that your income is topped up by other tax payers. This has the advantage of high tax payers not being given a payment every month that they don't need.

The downside of it is that means testing still requires some amount of beaurocracy. That means you'd be unable to completely axe the department of work and pensions (DWP) for example here in the UK. My understanding is that you could do universal basic income and pay everyone in the UK £1000 per month and those costs would be totally offset by no longer having to finance the DWP so it's a budget neutral policy in terms of government spending.

It would make reporters stop bitching about the economy and help keep things afloat.

People can buy groceries when they have the money to do so. They may even have a little extra to buy a candy bar, or a gadget or coffee to also boost the economy.

It would allow people to be more productive since stress destroys your ability to function properly.

And most importantly: nobody should worry about a roof over their head or where their next meal is coming from.

Yes, I strongly believe we should have it.

Free healthcare for all before we even think about UBI.

No conversation about UBI is complete without also discussing the source of the funds and how other government programs might be effected.

I think UBI sounds great on the surface but I worry that it could alter our basic survival incentives which may have unintended consequences for the group of people who aren't needing UBI.

Should UBI replace existing food and housing programs? Should UBI replace other things that are designed to mold the economy such as subsidized public transportation or small business loan guarantees? What about income tax incentives designed to encourage saving and growing money carefully versus consumption (capital gains versus income tax, tax-deferred retirement savings accounts).

I suspect there's a fairly significant carry-on effect from shifting resources away from these types of programs to a UBI program. But what I'm not clear on is how that might impact other behaviors from well resourced people who may start to play the game, so to speak, by a new set of rules.

For example, do we see inflation around inelastic needs such as rent prices and grocery bills? If we did, UBI is not much more than a grocery store/landlord stimulus program. It's hard to imagine that we wouldn't see this unless controls are placed on those businesses which in turn, removes incentives to own and grow businesses.

It seems like a UBI program would promote an economy based on consumption and not on savings and investment. Why save your money if you'll get topped up again next month, and every month for the rest of your life? By investment I'm not talking about Wall Street, I'm talking about finishing college degrees, investing in new ideas, chasing startup ideas, those people who stay up late at night working on inventions that they think could bring them rewards.

Perhaps the most fundamental question to be answered is this:

To what degree do we, as the human race, find benefit in helping the less capable of our species survive. Potentially at a cost - not to the strongest and most capable - but instead placed mostly on the shoulders of the slightly-more-capable.

Yes

Regardless of my opinions for it, it'll be a societal requirement with the advancement of technology unless we wish to move away from a monetary based system.

I personally am fully for it, I am concerned about the productivity drop if it is implemented too early, however such a system needs to exist for continued societal functionality.

Sounds like a great idea, and in fact if AI proceeds as it looks to be proceeding, Basic Income will be the only thing that keeps society from totally collapsing.

The tricky part is trying to figure out how much it should be. If such a thing would be implemented like totally in a society, it would probably have a huge economical impact. And as far as I can tell, nobody has any idea what that impact would be. Who knows, perhaps it'll be completely nullified by prices rising exactly as much as the UBI is.

no

I would vote for it, because it seems nice and I don't see myself sitting still regardless, just that I'd choose more fulfilling / societally beneficial work if there weren't this idea of needing to provide and work with market forces. But then it came up with my cousin and she said she'd do fuck all, travel, spend time horse riding or whatnot, anything but work because why bother. Less anecdotal studies show cautiously positive results (or exceedingly positive in misleading headlines until you open the study and find two sides to the coin), but afaik have so far been very limited in both scale and duration. So idk but it seems at least worth a real try. Do we always need to have strong opinions?