Dismantling myths about Universal Basic Income one fact at a time:
UBI isn't about giving money to do nothing. It's about money to do ANYTHING. This is in stark contrast to traditional welfare benefits that require people to keep their incomes sufficiently low to keep getting it.
@scottsantens is that the myth, though? I'd think the criticism is that it's giving money FOR nothing, not TO DO nothing, which is a very different statement.
@volkris You mean "for nothing" as it "has no utility"? @scottsantens
@Koochulainn it means the money is not given in exchange for anything, the recipient of the money has done nothing in exchange for the benefit.
@volkris I thought that was what the OP meant.
If your definition is different from "to do nothing" it is very slight IMO.
No matter whether it is "to do" or "has done", it is still an objection to anyone receiving money they "haven't earned".
It's the same objection to funding public healthcare, education, whatever.
@scottsantens
@Koochulainn indeed, and that is a critical objection, so it's worth identifying the objection clearly so it can be addressed.
But no, I interpreted the OP as looking into what people would do with the money after they receive it, which is certainly something many, many folks concern themselves with.
You know the old phrase, "They'll just use it to buy drugs"? That's the sort of objection I thought the OP was referring to.
@volkris That's why I was trying to get to the bottom of what you were saying.
Fair enough, but I think we disagree that there is much of a difference between "They havent done anything, so why should we give them money?" and "Why should we give them money if they arent going to do anything for it?"
For me, they are both essentially the same thing - "Why should we give people money for nothing (neither work done nor work to be done)?".
@volkris So if not "has no utility" and also not "to do nothing", what does "for nothing" mean in this context? @scottsantens