4 ms·

> This is an incorrect view, perhaps you've been mislead or misunderstand? UBI is widely understood to be a program that would replace all existing benefits. S

> This is an incorrect view, perhaps you've been mislead or misunderstand? UBI is widely understood to be a program that would replace all existing benefits. So in a European country for example would replace all cash, housing, child, family, disability benefits. Otherwise, there is no point. The practical argument being then you save money administering means tested benefits. This is very easy to talk about without amounts which is why your vague and meaningless claims as to a source of the income are so useless. > o ones arguing (or they at least shouldn't be) that it will guarantee everyone with enough money for everything they need Then i would suggest you are out of touch with UBI advocates goals and ideas.

Rury 4y ago
>UBI is widely understood to be a program that would replace all existing benefits... It could certainly be done that way. It also doesn't have to be. >Otherwise, there is no point. The practical argument being then you save money administering means tested benefits. Sure lumping all benefits into one could reduce costs in overhead, but that doesn't mean there is no point to having separate benefits, as UBI is not means tested, and lumping means tested benefits into it would then get rid of any means. Now, whether this should be done or not is a matter of opinion, and one of which I'm not particularly arguing about. I'm merely showing you what UBI is, that it can be afforded, and that it can help alleviate poverty. I'm not arguing that it will provide enough income to meet everyones needs, nor arguing that we should implement it. >This is very easy to talk about without amounts which is why your vague and meaningless claims as to a source of the income are so useless. I find this a non sequitur. A non-zero amount is still an amount. If you argue I need to provide a number to prove that taxes can yield non-zero income/amounts, then I find you're being ridiculous. >Then i would suggest you are out of touch with UBI advocates goals and ideas I would suggest not lumping all UBI advocates as sharing the same goals/opinions. We need less grouping and labelling in politics, and more critical thinking. (I'm not a UBI advocate BTW).

Rury 4y ago

>UBI is widely understood to be a program that would replace all existing benefits... It could certainly be done that way. It also doesn't have to be. >Otherwise, there is no point. The practical argument being then you save money administering means tested benefits. Sure lumping all benefits into one could reduce costs in overhead, but that doesn't mean there is no point to having separate benefits, as UBI is not means tested, and lumping means tested benefits into it would then get rid of any means. Now, whether this should be done or not is a matter of opinion, and one of which I'm not particularly arguing about. I'm merely showing you what UBI is, that it can be afforded, and that it can help alleviate poverty. I'm not arguing that it will provide enough income to meet everyones needs, nor arguing that we should implement it. >This is very easy to talk about without amounts which is why your vague and meaningless claims as to a source of the income are so useless. I find this a non sequitur. A non-zero amount is still an amount. If you argue I need to provide a number to prove that taxes can yield non-zero income/amounts, then I find you're being ridiculous. >Then i would suggest you are out of touch with UBI advocates goals and ideas I would suggest not lumping all UBI advocates as sharing the same goals/opinions. We need less grouping and labelling in politics, and more critical thinking. (I'm not a UBI advocate BTW).