The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Monthly Moderated Topic Sept18 - UBI

Topic: Universal Basic Income

============

Much ado has been made in recent years both in the public and academic spheres about things like inequality, the rise of automation, worker displacement and the falling happiness levels of society. One proposal to ameliorate these things that has perennially re-emerged and is once again receiving consideration and scrutiny is UBI, or Universal Basic Income. Also valid for discussion is Guaranteed Basic Income (or GDI) which is generally referred to as means-tested UBI.

What it is: Simply put, UBI is tantamount to paying people a salary for, simply, existing. Generally speaking, most proposed schemes would pay out a fixed sum to each person, working or not, that would cover basic costs of sustenance survival at a minimum. Some proposals would pay more, some less, some attenuate payments according to perceived need. However, the central tenet of all systems is that a person need not be "productive" to obtain a living. Another central tenet is that it would be a form of cash payment, and therefore, in contrast to most existing systems of "welfare" that tend to focus on providing certain specific "things" such as housing vouchers redeemable at certain specially subsidized housing or food stamps usable only for approved grocery purchases, allows the recipients a wide berth of freedom and choice in how they use their UBI. This allows a recipient to retain a larger degree of agency in their decisions, in theory allowing the recipient be creative and judicious with how they use their money.

Allowing recipients to maintain their agency and discretion as consumers serves several important roles according to many proponents: thriftiness, creativity, strategy, entrepreneurship are all enabled by providing a living in cash - or so the thinking goes. An example of this would be a homeless person looking for housing. Currently under many welfare regimes found in the USA, they may qualify for a section 8 voucher. In practice, this voucher often gives them a choice between various slum dwellings in poor neighborhoods. The reasoning is that the actual customer of the subsidized housing is not the eventual occupant, but rather the govt agency providing the subsidy. There is no reason for a landlord to do more in terms of property management than the govt requires to obtain the subsidy, which in practice tends to be a much lower threshold than people with even moderate incomes will accept. However, if everyone paid with the same money - then the occupant becomes the customer. Instead of a slumlord obtaining the govt's $500 (or applicable sum) a month, the occupant receives the $500 in the form of UBI and can choose to rent an apartment in a part of town (or even a different town entirely) where there might be available work, or they might be at less risk of getting shot.

Why it is unique: UBI is somewhat unique in that it tends to defy common political tribalism in its support. It sits outside the conventional box. It has many adherents on the 'left' and 'right' - and also a great many detractors on both sides, with some voices on the left calling it a consumerist trap to undermine the welfare state, and some on the right calling it a new communist plot.

---

Do you think UBI is good, or bad? Why? What are the caveats? If you support it, under what conditions? What aspects are key to a successful implementation, or if implemented what aspect do you think will cause a greater social harm?

Discussion is OPEN - but don't forget to read the rules


Some suggested reading:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ic-income-review-stern-murray-automation - Vox's Dylan Matthews " A basic income really could end poverty forever
But to become a reality, it needs to get detailed and stop being oversold."

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-ubi-20170625-story.html "Conservatives, liberals, techies, and social activists all love universal basic income: Has its time come?"

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/...and-finland-milton-friedman-kathi-weeks/ "Without the right design, a universal basic income would do little to advance radical change."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/ "The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income

Creating a wage floor is an effective way to fight poverty—and it would reduce government spending and intrusion."

---------------------------------------------------------------

While I support UBI, this is not the position I intend to argue here. My understanding of rules for this moderated discussion that such conduct is not against the rules. Please let me know if this is not the case.

You can take any position you would like and argue any position that strikes your fancy, for any reason you find suitable. I picked UBI as inaugural topic precisely because you can pick almost any random coordinate on the political compass and credibly argue for or against.

Universal Basic Income is an expansion of welfare state, absolution of personal responsibility, and will ultimately lead to totalitarianism.

When people are on the dole, they directly depend on the government for sustenance. Consequently they lose both will and ability to challenge and hold government and its representatives accountable. For example, what UBI recipient would ever vote for a representative that advocating balanced budgets and fiscally responsible policies when that would inevitably result in cuts to UBI? Consequence of this is that you run out of other people's money. We have recent example of exactly this playing out in Venezuela. While it wasn't exactly UBI, it was close to that for a substantial part of population. It took less than 20 years to completely collapse economy of an oil-rich country, without petro dollars it would have happened even quicker.

Market economy can only function when individuals incentivized to be productive and UBI strongly disincentivizes any work. To put it bluntly, people on the dole are takers that contribute nothing to the society - they do not create wealth in any form, just consume it. That means that someone else has to create wealth and have a substantial share of it forcefully taken away by threat of violence to have it distributed to unproductive share of population. I don't know a single economist that would suggest making our economy less productive, all our economical models depend on continuous growth, but UBI would do exactly that.

When you combine effects of increased dependence on the government, absolution of personal responsibility, and economic stagnation due to low productivity you create perfect fertile ground for totalitarians to arise. Therefore, I conclude that UBI, if implemented, will directly lead to collapse of our Republic to be replaced by a totalitarian government.