2 ms·

On the other hand, both sides of the aisle can dislike it too: > * On the left hand, you don't just get some level of control over maximum income, but also can

On the other hand, both sides of the aisle can dislike it too: > * On the left hand, you don't just get some level of control over maximum income, but also can just directly set an income-floor. What more do you want? "UBI gives people dollars but takes away their free education and food assistance, so they have to choose how to spend the money. We should explicitly guarantee basic rights, not make people purchase them." > * On the right hand, for one you're basically giving every entrepreneur a "free" ramen budget for their startup to build on top of. At the same time you can also abolish quite a number of subsidies, reducing the costs of bureaucratic administration. "UBI is additional public spending. Giving people UBI doesn't mean they _don't_ get other benefits too. Also, assistance from the state should be limited to things people in unexpected situations desperately need (like food assistance): it's not a good use of taxpayer money to fund Kim_Bruning's next iPhone."

Kim_Bruning 4y ago
On either side of the aisle it should be clear that you're giving politicians an extra lever they can use to manage the economy and prevent undesirable outcomes. Obviously we want to stimulate people's self determination and hard work. On the other hand we don't want people to fall out of the bottom of the system. With UBI in place as an extra tool, this can be tuned much better than without it. Later both sides can argue over how much it should be, and what kinds of thing still needs separate subsidies versus where government spending can be reduced. But now they have an extra policy tool to implement their wishes, whichever side of the aisle they're on. Why wouldn't one pick it up?