4 ms·
The counter-argument is that those cheques stop if those people start working. In a worst-case scenario, you can end up with a "dead zone" where you make the sa
by dibujante 11y ago
The counter-argument is that those cheques stop if those people start working. In a worst-case scenario, you can end up with a "dead zone" where you make the same amount of money working 30 hours a week at a poorly-paying job as you get doing absolutely nothing. Why not do absolutely nothing, then? Advocates of UBI stress that the non-means-tested nature of these benefits prevents them from causing that trap. Even if you're only working for a penny, that's an extra penny minus tax that you keep.
- white-flame 11y agoNobody would work those jobs, but on the other hand those jobs exist because companies need that work done. That's what closes the feedback loop and would raise wages to meed their need for basic actual human work. It's an unfamiliar system, but it seems crazy enough to have a chance. At the very least, it's FAR simpler to run than welfare, because it wouldn't need to be qualified and policed. Those issues are involved in the creation of a crime (cheating welfare) that needn't exist at all under BI.
- meric 11y agoImmigrants who aren't eligible for welfare yet, would.