4 ms·
This sounds plausible, but my question in this context is always: given that people in first world countries are not currently starving to death by the millions
by mrec 9y ago
This sounds plausible, but my question in this context is always: given that people in first world countries are not currently starving to death by the millions, where is the money coming from to keep them alive? If this money were to be replaced by a UBI, who would realize the savings?
Like the apocryphal aerodynamic analysis proving that bumblebees can't possibly fly, an analysis concluding that we can't possibly afford to keep people alive suggests that we're probably missing something. Because we do.
- trendia 9y agoWe do have systems in place to keep people alive. Food stamps, medicaid, medicare, social security, soup kitchens, charities, etc etc. Those peograms are targeted to people in need, not just "just because
- mrec 9y agoYes, but so what? People not in need would still be benefitting from BI payments to them, and those benefits should be offset against any increase in tax and/or reduction in salary. There's a legitimate question as to whether a UBI would encourage slacking, but that's a separate issue from whether or not the money exists. The money clearly does exist, because it's already being spent. It's just being spent in what's arguably a humiliating and distorting way.