Often proponents of UBI say that to finance it one can replace the inefficient provision of other social services, so having both is usually the not argument.
I think what most people fail to understand is that the very basis of our current economic system is to incentivize people to find exploits (see all the talk about “disruptors” and so on). And it is an unhealthy co-dependent relationship with the bureaucratic regulators, who to a large extend justify their existence on curbing the worst excesses of these exploits.
Not an expert in the topic at all, but I believe that in the UBI trials that were run (in Europe?) still had the public healthcare and education system available.
I think UBI can support and make easier some form of social welfare. For instance, in the country I’m living at the moment, it has been made really difficult for people who have to rely on social welfare to access it. A variety of gates have been created in order to ensure that an applicant “really needs” access.
I believe that UBI would be a much more dignified way of delivering social welfare. However I’m thinking about it really as a progressive tax that starts in the negative and then increases with income, which might be different to what others mean by this.
Don’t disagree with your comment regarding the incentives in the current economic setup… however I believe that at the current stage the regulators rather aim to protect the excesses rather than trying to curb them.
I think a UBI can sit in parallel with other initiatives. For instance you can have universal healthcare and education, while still having UBI.
I also think that just because an idea can be perverted, it doesn’t mean that it has to be that way or that there are no positive sides to it.
I’m critical of UBI as a single, silver bullet. However, I do think that there is potential for it to play a role in creating more just societies.
Often proponents of UBI say that to finance it one can replace the inefficient provision of other social services, so having both is usually the not argument.
I think what most people fail to understand is that the very basis of our current economic system is to incentivize people to find exploits (see all the talk about “disruptors” and so on). And it is an unhealthy co-dependent relationship with the bureaucratic regulators, who to a large extend justify their existence on curbing the worst excesses of these exploits.
Not an expert in the topic at all, but I believe that in the UBI trials that were run (in Europe?) still had the public healthcare and education system available.
I think UBI can support and make easier some form of social welfare. For instance, in the country I’m living at the moment, it has been made really difficult for people who have to rely on social welfare to access it. A variety of gates have been created in order to ensure that an applicant “really needs” access.
I believe that UBI would be a much more dignified way of delivering social welfare. However I’m thinking about it really as a progressive tax that starts in the negative and then increases with income, which might be different to what others mean by this.
Don’t disagree with your comment regarding the incentives in the current economic setup… however I believe that at the current stage the regulators rather aim to protect the excesses rather than trying to curb them.
But would we still need ubi if basics social services are provided?
Like if access to housing, food, healthcare, education and culture was secured for all?
I think you still want people to have some freedom for non-essential activities that they can access through their own means.