4 ms·

And we can't just enforce the laws against said petty crime because...? Some people that play violent video games also end up committing violent crime. And ye

And we can't just enforce the laws against said petty crime because...? Some people that play violent video games also end up committing violent crime. And yet, not once has such an argument come anywhere close to banning violent video games. And mind you, you don't even need a free supply of drugs to prevent said crime. Drugs ain't that expensive on the street; if people are resorting to crime to pay for e.g. heroin, chances are they're already pretty close to needing to resort to petty crime to pay for food and shelter. The focus should therefore be on their economic well-being; UBI would benefit them and non-addicts, and would go a lot further (not to mention that financial stress is already something that drives people to self-medicate said stress in the first place).

imtringued 6y ago
I disagree with UBI. There are simpler mechanisms that aren't a funding nightmare. Government jobs and infrastructure investments are the tried and true method for times when economic activity is below the expected/desired levels. Fiscal policy is actually a necessary part of speeding up the recovery of the economy. A UBI that gets abolished as soon as the economy picks up again is fruitless because it fails to keep its promise.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > There are simpler mechanisms UBI is quite literally as simple as it gets: revenue = collect_taxes() # LVT, other wealth taxes, etc. ubi_pool = revenue - cover_expenses() # infrastructure, etc. for c in citizens: c.send_check(ubi_pool / citizens.count) > that aren't a funding nightmare No less a "funding nightmare" (because God forbid the ownership class pays its fair share) than artificially creating jobs for the sake of working. Would be a lot simpler to just... give citizens money. On that note... > Government jobs and infrastructure investments are the tried and true method for times when economic activity is below the expected/desired levels. Infrastructure improvements are necessary regardless of whether or not the economy is healthy; bridges and roads don't care about whether society is rich or poor when they decide to collapse. And government jobs beyond said improvements just shuffle around the symptoms of economic problems without actually fixing anything. That is: these are "tried", sure, but they solve different problems than what UBI and other forms of welfare solve. > A UBI that gets abolished as soon as the economy picks up again Why in the heck would we want to do that? The whole point of UBI is to be a permanent safety net, not some stop-gap solution. And with that permanent solution, economic downturns and crises become significantly less harmful to the working class. UBI is a preventative measure, not a reactive one.

imtringued 6y ago

I disagree with UBI. There are simpler mechanisms that aren't a funding nightmare. Government jobs and infrastructure investments are the tried and true method for times when economic activity is below the expected/desired levels. Fiscal policy is actually a necessary part of speeding up the recovery of the economy. A UBI that gets abolished as soon as the economy picks up again is fruitless because it fails to keep its promise.

yellowapple 6y ago
> There are simpler mechanisms UBI is quite literally as simple as it gets: revenue = collect_taxes() # LVT, other wealth taxes, etc. ubi_pool = revenue - cover_expenses() # infrastructure, etc. for c in citizens: c.send_check(ubi_pool / citizens.count) > that aren't a funding nightmare No less a "funding nightmare" (because God forbid the ownership class pays its fair share) than artificially creating jobs for the sake of working. Would be a lot simpler to just... give citizens money. On that note... > Government jobs and infrastructure investments are the tried and true method for times when economic activity is below the expected/desired levels. Infrastructure improvements are necessary regardless of whether or not the economy is healthy; bridges and roads don't care about whether society is rich or poor when they decide to collapse. And government jobs beyond said improvements just shuffle around the symptoms of economic problems without actually fixing anything. That is: these are "tried", sure, but they solve different problems than what UBI and other forms of welfare solve. > A UBI that gets abolished as soon as the economy picks up again Why in the heck would we want to do that? The whole point of UBI is to be a permanent safety net, not some stop-gap solution. And with that permanent solution, economic downturns and crises become significantly less harmful to the working class. UBI is a preventative measure, not a reactive one.