this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
289 points (96.8% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27240 readers
2414 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hello, I'm not that informed about UBI, but here is my arguement:

Everyone gets some sort of income, but wouldn't companies just subside the income by raising their prices? Also, do you believe capatilism can co-exist with UBI?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Let's say 50k is average income

Basic income is 10k

The average person would get 10k in UBI but pay 10k more in taxes

They will have 50k dollars

Someone that makes 100k would get the 10k in UBI but would have to pay 20k more in taxes.

They will have 90k dollars

Someone making 15k (federal min wage) would get 10k in UBI and pay nothing in taxes

They will have 25k dollars

This is simplified, but the idea is that all three people still made 165k combined. Just the person at the bottom got some help.

UBI does not increase the total amount of money in the economy. Just moves it from the rich to the poor.

The average person is still going to have the same spending power

UBI only exists to solve a problem of capitalism. Other systems could have a UI like communism. But it's the flaws of capitalism that needs it to correct itself.

Social programs exist in capitalism and have existed for years. They are just a complex way of solving a basic problem. "How do we get poor people money?"

Personally, I'd be for UBMI (Universal Bare Minimum Income). Everyone should be provided bare minimum from the society. Food, water, shelter, etc. If you can afford to pay it back, great, if you can't, that's fine too. But when people talk about UBI it's always "how much??". And it should be the bare minimum to survive and not be forced to run the capitalism rat race. If you're content to sit in a small shelter and eat 3 meals a day, the government should give it to you. The government gives it to people who break the law and are no where near as deserving

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

UBI only exists to solve a problem of capitalism [...] moves it from the rich to the poor.

I'm not sure I agree that UBI is the best way to solve this, but we are in agreement about the massive flaw in capitalism. When the richest man extracts the final dollar from his rival, capitalism is over. Money has no meaning because no one has any except for that one guy. That's an impossible extreme, but it demonstrates the fundamental flaw that without money circulating, there is no economy.

Putting money into the hands of the poor stimulates the economy. It gives them some ability to participate beyond the simple need for shelter and sustenance. Anyone with no discretionary income has no role other than demand for basic necessities (that's not intended as an insult, that's the reality of a wealth-based society)

That being said, handing money out to everyone has an inflationary effect, so there would have to be some thought put into countering that. And I guarantee payday loan places would find a way to keep the poor impoverished.

Anyway yours was a good comment I thought I'd piggyback into. There are flaws with UBI, but unfettered capitalism is unsustainable and it certainly one way to address the issue.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I wasn't saying it was the best way, just a way. I'm not sure if it is the best. But the most simple way to make sure everyone's basic needs are met is to give everyone their basic needs and then figure out who has enough to give to others.

The flaw with capitalism is that someone of no "value" gets no value

If a company can lay off one worker and become more efficient, that is great in capitalism. Just the one worker gets screwed.

If that worker was say a robot where you could sit it on the shelf and not worry about it, then that's fine. But that worker is a human with needs and capitalism doesn't help that person because they have no "value".

The idea that we have to manufacture jobs for these people to "earn" money to live is another solution.

Putting money into the hands of the poor stimulates the economy.

It can stimulate the economy, it's not a guarantee.

Always enjoyed this story:

Two economists are walking in a forest

The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.

They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.

Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing."

"That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP of the forest by $200!"

That being said, handing money out to everyone has an inflationary effect, so there would have to be some thought put into countering that. And I guarantee payday loan places would find a way to keep the poor impoverished.

You touched on one reason it wouldn't be guaranteed.

Giving loans to people would be better than UBI. UBI should be viewed as a loan and not free money. If you were ever able to pay it back, you should.

Another problem with capitalism is that a potential worker has no time to hold out for better options. You're 18 and poor, you have to accept the first job offered as fast as possible or you won't have shelter or food.

Giving these people a loan or UBI means they can get by until they find something that benefits them. If they want to tell the fast food place "I'll do it for $15 and not $12 an hour" it's possible

It's crazy that the difference between $12 and $15 is 25%. A 25% raise is a large one.

I appreciated reading your comment!

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Would this communism have money? If so, what’s the purpose of the money?

If people are choosing to buy things, that’s a free market and it’s not communism. If people are forced to buy specific things, it’s not really buying.

If people are free to buy certain things but new people aren’t allowed to enter the market with new products, that’s just worse than capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

If so, what’s the purpose of the money?

Barter and trade will always be part of humanity unless we somehow manage post-scarcity. Money is so far the best way we've found to manage and track the value of things for that system.

If people are choosing to buy things, that’s a free market

No, it's just a market, and even then that's not a guarantee at all. It could be that people just trade money for valuables amongst themselves, or other systems I'm too stupid to conceive of

If people are forced to buy specific things, it’s not really buying

Yes, it is? Its only not buying if you don't trade money for it, ie the government sending it to everyone for free

If people are free to buy certain things but new people aren’t allowed to enter the market with new products, that’s just worse than capitalism.

Good thing that's not anyone's suggestion