4 ms·

I simply don’t think UBI can survive long term even if it ever gets introduced. The same people who advocate for tax cuts now will also be advocating against UB

I simply don’t think UBI can survive long term even if it ever gets introduced. The same people who advocate for tax cuts now will also be advocating against UBI and the “lazy parasites” the “job creators” have to feed. People are already complaining about welfare recipients and in the eyes of the people who work full time people who live on UBI will be exactly the same. Unless we totally restructure society this won’t work long term. Also all proposals I have seen are way too low. They will create slums where people will barely survive. How about doing some pragmatic stuff like universal health care and increasing the supply of low cost housing dramatically? They are pretty much prerequisites for UBI. If we can’t pull that off forget UBI.

paulgb 7y ago
> [...] increasing the supply of low cost housing dramatically? They are pretty much prerequisites for UBI. Yes, I'm sort of surprised that fixing housing costs is not the first priority of people who want UBI ASAP. As I see it, if you don't start adding supply to the housing market quickly, a UBI would actually become a regressive policy where a tax on consumption (VAT) is effectively transferred to land owners. On the intended effect of reducing inequality, it might be counterproductive.
- falcolas 7y ago
  Supply exists. Surplus exists. It’s just reserved for the wealthy, since homebuilders can make more profit off one luxury home than a hundred affordable homes, even if they have to leave the luxury home vacant for years before finding a buyer.
  - paulgb 7y ago
    Suddenly having an extra $1k/month isn't going to bump many people into the bracket where the can suddenly afford the luxury housing, though. It goes back to the housing supply needing to be fixed, UBI itself does not fix it.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  “a UBI would actually become a regressive policy where a tax on consumption (VAT) is effectively transferred to land owners.” Since UBI is mainly pushed by wealthy people I wouldn’t be surprised if this was intended.

paulgb 7y ago

> [...] increasing the supply of low cost housing dramatically? They are pretty much prerequisites for UBI. Yes, I'm sort of surprised that fixing housing costs is not the first priority of people who want UBI ASAP. As I see it, if you don't start adding supply to the housing market quickly, a UBI would actually become a regressive policy where a tax on consumption (VAT) is effectively transferred to land owners. On the intended effect of reducing inequality, it might be counterproductive.

falcolas 7y ago
Supply exists. Surplus exists. It’s just reserved for the wealthy, since homebuilders can make more profit off one luxury home than a hundred affordable homes, even if they have to leave the luxury home vacant for years before finding a buyer.
- paulgb 7y ago
  Suddenly having an extra $1k/month isn't going to bump many people into the bracket where the can suddenly afford the luxury housing, though. It goes back to the housing supply needing to be fixed, UBI itself does not fix it.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
“a UBI would actually become a regressive policy where a tax on consumption (VAT) is effectively transferred to land owners.” Since UBI is mainly pushed by wealthy people I wouldn’t be surprised if this was intended.