We worry about providing Universal Basic Income because people might stop working, but here's a thought: maybe, just maybe, with a little financial security, people might actually pursue work they truly choose rather than work to just not die. Imagine that world for a moment.
🇳🇱
As someone who is strongly against UBI, and strongly supportive of welfare I can earnestly say people simply not working is not at all the reason I (or most people against UBI in my opinion) are against it.
The reason i am against it is because it causes people more harm than good. People who are in a position where they need assistance need to be given the tools to get out of their situation, and the help to get there needs to be conditional on this (and we should be spending the money that goes with that). Financial assistance should be conditional with mandatory job training or mental health therapy needed to help someone succeed, not just money.
In fact when there are underlying bad habits, as can often be the case, it is possible money can even make a persons condition worse and cause them to sleep farther into poverty.
@freemo I've never seen any argument for folk not working when getting UBI, but that it sits under incomes as a financial safety net for most cases. Some cases may need more money or other forms of welfare but UBI would catch most cases.
I agree, i neve rheard the argument of not working used against UBI. Actually i have heard that argument, but it is always int he form of those for the concept fabricating it as an argument of those against. I never legitimately heard it used as an argument against.
As for it being a safety net, in theory sure. But considering the harm it does as I already explained in thread, and considering there are non-harmful ways to accomplish the same safety net. Also considering it isnt really sufficient even as a safety net for most, I simply cant support the idea under this premise.
@freemo It is too easy to mess it up and there are pitfalls too. The UK 'universal credit' is an example.
@SteelFolk Again, easy and not a solution, vs harder and actually a solution... yea its easier to mess up when you actually try to solve problems (rather than just opening up a hose of money which is hard to screw up, other than not solving anything and making things literally worse).
Yea solutions mean they need to be done right, and thats a given.
@SteelFolk Punitive how exactly? I've certainly heard a few callous things before, but never a **common** stance where it should be punitive.
My own stance is not there there are punishments. Do what is required of you (like enroll in school for free),a nd get the money as long as your going. If you stop going you dont get punished other than not receiving the benefits you got for going.
I'd also make the absolute minimal level of food needed not to die (soup kitchens) plus a cot in a gym with 100 other people to sleep on as always available no questions asked. But if you want a home and food you buy yourself and some of the basic needs beyond just keeping you alive, yea that should have conditions.
@freemo There are some who believe it should be a deterrent and so designed against 'scroungers'. Sometimes this is said openly in the UK.
@freemo The problem is that it becomes more important to prevent mis-use than to make it work for its purpose. Since there are always folks smart enough to freeload, everyone is treated as guilty of the intent. This deters legitimate claimants.
@freemo Yes, most of them feature a desire to make them punitive. We moved on from 'debtors prison' and workhouses, but only just. There remains a view that folk will work harder to avoid an unpleasant system but they never have.