I'm not necessarily against the idea of a UBI, I just don't understand why people always jump the gun that the government is the only entity capable of supplying such a thing. I find this especially counter-intuitive, where it's being proposed in a hypothetical situation of a mass work scarcity created through something like a takeover by automation - because in that situation, a lot of things will already be free (or dirt cheap)
But you seem to have a different line of reasoning for why we need a UBI. And I think you have philosophy a lot of people don't actually agree with.
philosopher wrote: ↑
Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:28 pm
In the early through mid-20th century, lower class people blamed the rich for their financial problems:
Not paying enough taxes according to their enormous wealth.
I think this is a bit of 'progressive' projection, here; The lot of the lower class has never blamed the rich for their problems, they just see them as having a solution to their problems.
But nowadays the poor working class seems to blame those receiving unemployment benefits/sick or disability relief benefits etc. claiming that they are all cheaters who just don't want to work, while the working people have to do all the dirty work.
Well people don't like being forced into a responsibility they aren't responsible for; It's not the fault of taxpayers that those receiving welfare benefits are in their situation. That's definitely part of it, but I think it's also that no one seems to be giving their fears a voice, at least in terms of a solution on this. There are definitely politicians in my country who look to cut the costs of our welfare system, but very few who are looking ahead to the future in order to prevent further welfare dependency.
The main reason why illegal immigration in america is such a hot-button issue right now is not because of some fear that they're taking our jobs - although that's admittedly part of it, and not one I find entirely justifiable - no, it's because they're unnecessarily increasing our country's welfare dependency. Now, most people are wrong about how
they're doing this, because it's not like they're applying for social security or some shit - it's actually because of all the children they're having.
But the few politicians who speak their cause all want to abolish the current workfare or even welfare benefits, and replace it with some sort of Basic Income, levelled according to income in a way that still gives incentive to work.
This would cut adminstrative costs of welfare benefits with all its fit-for-work tests etc. and more importantly:
It will create TRUE liberty. Not wage slavery. But true liberty. You actually have a CHOICE to: Work more or less or stop working. If you work more, you get more money, obviously. If you choose to work less, thats fine, but you won't get as much money. The same applies for not working at all.
A UBI system that you expect to replace our current welfare system, is going to be far more expensive than our current welfare system. The full damage extends beyond that, because you do effectively reduce the incentive for people to work, even if not entirely. And of course this is going to have other consequences like raising the cost of goods to the point that it essentially cancels out whatever he government is giving you. I think you need to elaborate a bit on your rationale, here.
As for having 'true liberty,' you definitely already have that. It's just a matter of whether you think the consequences are worth it. They're not even 'consequences,' really, it's just that you know what you can have with a job is so much better.
Well, then is also those in government, as they run out of options to control the people through work, incentives, taxes etc.
In this pipedream of yours, how does this prevent them from controlling you through taxes? They are going to be substantially higher with a system that covers substantially more, while incentivising less.