The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)
1–10 of 106 posts
Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)
#2The byline appears to have a redundancy, or a contradiction:
>There is an increasing global conversation about the idea of a ‘Universal Basic Income’ – a universal weekly payment to all eligible citizens.
Wouldn't everyone be eligible for a universal basic income? Are all persons eligible citizens? Is the article actually talking about an ‘Eligible Citizens' Basic Income’?
Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)
#3We updated the URL from https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/re..., which points to this.
Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)
#4The byline appears to have a redundancy, or a contradiction: >There is an increasing global conversation about the idea of a ‘Universal Basic Income’ – a universal weekly payment to all eligible citizens. Wouldn't everyone be eligible for a universal basic income? Are all persons eligible citizens? Is the article actually talking about an ‘Eligible Citizens' Basic Income’?
I'm guessing criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed wouldn't be eligible. These are the vulnerable, marginalized and (sometimes) disenfranchised groups that America loves to shit on when it comes to social programs and basic rights.
Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)
#5[deleted]
Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)
#6The byline appears to have a redundancy, or a contradiction: >There is an increasing global conversation about the idea of a ‘Universal Basic Income’ – a universal weekly payment to all eligible citizens. Wouldn't everyone be eligible for a universal basic income? Are all persons eligible citizens? Is the article actually talking about an ‘Eligible Citizens' Basic Income’?
I'm guessing criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed wouldn't be eligible. These are the vulnerable, marginalized and (sometimes) disenfranchised groups that America loves to shit on when it comes to social programs and basic rights.
> "I'm guessing criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed wouldn't be eligible."
I believe "criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed" are all eligible under most proposed schemes, although the income level may differ for current prisoners.
Edit: according to the RSA blog introducing their proposal: "Prisoners would not receive it."
https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rs...
> "These are the vulnerable, marginalized and (sometimes) disenfranchised groups that America loves to shit on when it comes to social programs and basic rights."
The RSA (publisher of this report) is British.
Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)
#7[deleted]
In a lot of cultures, realized or not, having tons of children is a form of retirement insurance. Having basic income eliminates this uncertainty.
I'll reply to the implied point in a second post.
Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)
#8What most of these cases get wrong is that they confuse UBI as yet another way to deal with unemployment as the market corrects itself and new jobs are created.
I.e. it's seen as this temporary state that we might or might not be in for a limited amount of time.
The truth is that UBI is meant to deal with the fact that we will more or less all be unemployed and have no jobs and thus no income.
It's not meant to solve an isolated problem with the labour market, it's meant to solve the realization that there wont be any.
Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)
#9[deleted]
"Breeding for welfare" is a myth. Children are a major economic burden, even with welfare subsidies.
That said, there's no reason offhand to provide basic income to minors. Parents can choose to have as many children as they want, at their own expense. One of the key advantages of basic income is getting rid of the complexities and irregularities of the current welfare model. Subsidies for children are one of those complexities.
Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)
#10[deleted]
The current system in America provides a disincentive to work.
Social programs generally are not considered as income and do not preclude you from being eligible for other social programs (i.e. the benefits stack). This creates the unfortunate situation that some people that don't work at all receive more annual income (in kind) from the government than their working neighbors. It works out to nearly $60k per year in benefits.
I support the idea of a basic income that strives to create an equitable situation for the working class.