Ask Lemmy

Depends on the implementation, and I think that that's something of an issue in discussion about it -- because its effects depend a great deal on the specifics.

There is a portion of the small government conservative crowd that sees it as a replacement for welfare programs where the government mandates policy. Like, instead of getting, oh, food stamps or such, where the government precisely spells out policy in each area ("this is what you are permitted to buy with this"), people who are poorer than a certain amount would simply get a flat cash payment and choose how to use it. In that sense, it'd reduce the degree of control that government has, which is a goal that they'd like to see.

There's also a portion of the redistribute-more-wealth crowd on the left that sees it as existing alongside existing welfare programs, rather than as a replacement. For them, if the government has progressive taxation policy (like, income tax brackets or the like), a flat benefit to everyone will tend to redistribute more, which is a goal that they'd like to see.

Both implementations would qualify as UBI -- they both provide an unconditional basic income. But the actual effects depend on the implementation.

So when someone says something like "sign this petition for UBI", I think that a really good question is "tell me what sort of UBI you are aiming to have implemented", because the details have a very considerable impact on what it is that you're signing up to support.

I support the idea of a UBI because any kind of welfare system with rules as to who is eligible will rule out some people who are very much deserving on a technicality and there are people who are entirely caipable of working but go out of their way to cheat the system.

So in a way I support it for slightly "right" reasons. I want a level playing field, nobody should be fucked from the jump and nobody should have to fight for the very basics, beyond that you should have to work, contribute, create... do something to bring value to the greater world.

It can be either depending on implementation. If created to supplement lacking welfare services I'd say it's progressive leaning. If used to replace and prevent welfare systems (Andrew Yang style), I'd say it's pretty libertarian leaning.

American gen-Z punk rock anarchist, for what it's worth.

100% right-wing. It’s a bandaid solution to capitalism, to keep it going after mass unemployment and proletarization.

Left-wing is anti-capitalism (don’t even come at me Americans, seriously). UBI is capitalism.

Definitely left-wing since that money is taken through taxes (especially from the rich) and is given to anyone. I don't see how that could be right wing as many here say

UBI is neither left or right, it's ridiculously logical. If people don't have money, you don't have an economy. No economy, no taxes, no taxes, no government, no government, no support for the people and no military, no military, no defense from aggressors, no defense from aggressors, welcome back to the age of Gengis Khan.

You don't need to assign a political leaning to something that's fundamentally economic in nature.

There are entire industries that are dying as we speak and they will NOT be returning and they will NOT have jobs to replace them like there has been throughout history of automation. (Manufacturers got automated bots, but those bots required people to set, align, and assist or repair. Now all of this will be able to be done by other bots with a single site overseer who, eventually, will also be a bot)

This isn't a printing press situation where the writers are replaced by a printing press so they can better focus on journalism instead of writing individual papers by hand, this is a situation where we will have entire industries die and entire sets of professionals age out and entire professions lost to the void.

Another example of this would be bank tellers vs ATM's back in the day, the tellers thought ATM's would remove their jobs, it reduced their jobs at first, then changed their jobs outright to financial administration and management, rather than doling out cash to people, made their jobs more efficient and fundamentally different.

This is not that situation. The tellers will lose their jobs as well this time, and so will the bank managers and investors.

American/white/Millennial: Center-right. It recognizes the limits of capitalism without collectivizing the means of production.

IIRC ubi is a liberal idea. So right wing

It's neither. Leftism is collective ownership of the Means of Production, rightism is invidvidual ownership of the Means of Production. The left or the right can use it alongside either system.

American: In how left - right is commonly (mis)used here, It would be left-wing.

If you look at from a perspective where left is socialism and right is capitalism, It is slightly right-wing. But when your culture calls anything more than corporate handouts socialism, it seems pretty left-wing.

I think it's fair I should also share where I stand on this. In my OP I wanted to avoid soap-boxing and shaping the replies.

I, (german/elder millennial) used to think of it as right wing. That is partly because the social democrats who define (center-) left for me reject it. And partly because of Milton Friedman and his UBI proposal. Friedman was a noted right-wing economist of the Chicago school and was advisor to both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

Nowadays, I think of it as more liberal than either left or right. Like a number of people here said, I see it depending on what other policies surround it.

The reason I asked is, because I have seen a number of posts on this server proposing a UBI as a solution for some social ills; especially feared future mass unemployment. To me, looking to improve existing unemployment benefits and other programs would be a more obvious solution (not least, because it's more politically achievable).

Lemmy is supposed to be left-wing. Which made me wonder if this indicated a right-ward shift in economic policy preference. So I tried to get at this in a slightly subtle way.

Thanks everyone for indulging me.

Theoretically speaking, UBI operates within the structure of capitalism, so it's right wing by definition.

Practically speaking though you have supporters across the spectrum. On the left as a poverty elevation strategy, and on the libertarian right as an equaliser to enable entrepreneurs to take bigger risks.

On the right the split seems to be between those who are rich, and don't want to pay tax to fund UBI, and those who aspire to be rich but don't have the funds or safety net to start a business and see UBI as a way to provide it (without seeing themselves as someone who receives state aid / benefits).

Mid 30 Scandinavian right/libertarian leaning.

You can argue for it from both sides.

The right want a small government and to encourage entrepreneurs to take risks. The left want a strong social support system for the unfortunate.

From what I've read about it it seems like a good idea. The big question is how you implement it at scale without crashing the current system that works reasonably well.

I think it’s left because it’s a social support thing, and I think it’s right because it’s super simple and puts power in the hands of individuals to choose how to spend it.

As a libertarian, I support UBI because I think a society with UBI has more liberty than one without it. I’m a conservative, so I abhor complex government, where petty tyranny can hide under the guise of policy. And UBI is simple.