Quote from: squatz1 on August 05, 2018, 11:51:44 AM

This is going to be a long one, and I want people to be involved with this issue so I can hear all sides of the argument.

In the recent years, there has been a push from the right and the left to introduce a Universal Basic Income (UBI) -- which in short, is a set amount of income (pegged to inflation) which is provided to you if you're a US citizen. This money is given to you with no strings attached. I'm going to use an example and say that every American is given $10,000 a year regardless of the income that they have their marital status, and so on.

This in and so of itself removes the cliff dive which is apart of the welfare system we have now. As the welfare system, we have now may give a large number of benefits to someone who makes under $35,000 -- but won't give a dime to someone who is married and makes $36,000 a year. This practically means that the current system does not incentivize growth, it incentivizes you to stay under the imposed income (and other barriers) to get your benefits.

This new UBI system would give you money either way and then you'd be allowed to go work as hard as you want or as little as you want. I think (alongside some economists) that this is going to spur growth as it incentivizes people to go ahead and work hard to continue to succeed as they aren't held down by welfare limits.

I also want to say that with this system, some conservatives and libertarians think that the entire welfare system should be removed -- which includes, Medicare, Medicaid, and then the various federal and state programs which go alongside with it. To them (which I agree with), this plan is a substitute for every single other program that is currently present in the US relating to welfare. I'm not going to go into detail about what the left thinks the right thing to do with UBI is, but I do think they want to remove some programs and then add this on to the current welfare system -- but I think some of the liberal-leaning people who post here can chime in with that side of things.

I do want to stress that I don't know if $10,000 per year is the right number, it may be different based on research. I was JUST using an example.

I do think that UBI can work as a way to remove the hundreds of state and federal programs which aren't necessary when the benefits can come from one central source -- which only has to vet if you're a US citizen or not -- This is a way to remove the massive bureaucracy, and then introduce a program which will have the same effect to the people who need welfare.

I am fascinated by UBI. I think it is becoming necessary, as technology is taking over so many jobs. Robots and computers are producing products and groceries now. I never heard your argument before though. It truly can be a negative factor when people realize if they make $1000 more they'll lose way more in benefits. It seems like a no brainer that it's better to "stay down" sometimes. I think that when people have the basics they need for life, they will spend less time doing jobs that they don't like. We'll have more creativity and more people doing what they want to do. This will make society more productive as a whole.