• chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Perhaps you can make it work, and maybe you are right in thinking that it is the best course of action. But please don’t co-opt the terminology used by people advocating for a program that is really very different both ideologically and practically. This is not an honest way to promote what you want to do. When I say UBI, I want people to understand what I am talking about, and what I am talking about is payments to every person regardless of their income. That is what people saying UBI have meant for a long time, and acknowledging this is just basic respect.

    • Bonehead@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As long as you’re honest about wanting to give rich people money simply so that you’re strict definition of “universal” is maintained, I’ll be willing to explain what the “universal” in UBI actually means is “universally available” as opposed to “universally applied”.

            • Bonehead@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Just call it something else. It’s not UBI.

              That’s what it seems that you’re arguing. But as I said, “universal” can mean whatever we want. Let’s just give poor people money so they can survive a little better and not worry about what the exact connotations the name might imply.

              • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                UBI describes the policy I strongly support. The policy you support, I am on the fence about, and lean slightly against, for various reasons. It sounds like you, inversely, are pro means tested basic income, and anti universal basic income. Let’s allow people to make up their minds about these policies based on the facts and not anything resembling a semantic bait and switch.

                • Bonehead@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  However 88 billion (the cost estimate in the OP article) divided by the population of canada is 2200

                  By your own admission, your version of UBI wouldn’t be viable. You accuse me of a semantic bait and switch while misrepresenting the program the government is trying to implement.