this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
1251 points (93.2% liked)

Political Memes

5492 readers
2039 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

That's quite a shallow take on the whole thing. Universal Income's main impacts are indirect and affect the whole of society, for example:

  • It allows people to give it a go as inventors or artists at any point of their lifes, rather than the traditional 2 points of "young adult still getting money from your parents" and "having retired (for a few by having made so much money that can retire early) and do what he or she always wanted to do".
  • It places a floor on all incomes. Specifically if Universal Income is high enough so that people can afford housing and food from it alone, nobody will ever accept any jobs paying the same or less - all jobs will have to offer something beyond it to attract any workers.
  • Less crime because the sorts of crimes that desperate people commit and other "low yield" petty crimes will pretty much dissapear because they're not worth the risk and people don't need to do it.

As for means testing it or not, it really boils down to the complexity and cost associated with means testing: if it's cheaper if not means tested, why do it? It suspect Jeff Bezos' "pleasure" in getting Universal Income will be nothing next to what the losses from not to being able to pay shit salaries and treat his workers like shit anymore will make him feel.

[–] tagliatelle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

With UBI everyone would get it and any salary from a job would be additional. So salaries would go down, but compensated by UBI

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Whilst I wouldn't say that would be the case for certain, it does sound like a genuine possibility for a trully Universal (rather than in name only) UBI.

[–] SpiderShoeCult@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then they'll tie eligibility for UBI to being employed or seeking if able or having some sort of medical excuse for not being able and we're back here.

[–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The U in UBI is for unconditional. If there are conditions, it's not UBI...

[–] freebee@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those are the advantages of a redistributional, social security safety net income and a minimum wage. UBI does not deliver, because EVERYONE gets it. It is impossible that for example housing prices would stay the same. They'd rise, because now the kid with the rich parent still outbids you: (UBI) vs (UBI + rich parents), the inequality in society stays the same, at best. It would only work if accumulated capital is redistributed equally over everyone as well. Which is communism.

Social corrections to existing system are superior. Not everyone should get the same. Some people need more, some need less.

Yes, everyone should have the right to good housing, food and to live stressfree (that is, with a bit of a financial buffer instead of pay cheque to pay cheque), but UBI will not accomplish that. Social-democratic systems such as Western and northern Europe already have, do, to reasonable extent.

[–] centof@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

A well implemented UBI would be funded by a progressive tax system that taxes rich people more heavily that anyone else. If that is the case a rich persons taxes would end up increasing more than the UBI amount. At the same time everyone else's taxes may increase some but the UBI would more than cover the increase. That would lead to a net decrease in inequality.

Social corrections to existing system are superior. Not everyone should get the same. Some people need more, some need less.

A UBI as described above is a social correction. In essence it would redistribute money from those who have plenty of excess money to those who are struggling.

but UBI will not accomplish that.

This is just your opinion. How do you know it won't accomplish that when it has never been implemented at scale?

Social-democratic systems such as Western and northern Europe already have, do, to reasonable extent.

Ultimately a UBI can achieve a similar end result as the social-democratic systems. The key is in making sure it is implemented well. UBI is just a way of achieving the same goal in a different way.