3 ms·
Because you're comparing a BASIC income with $1,000,000/month income. So, yeah, obviously $1,000,000 is absurd. But a basic income that at least guarantees that
by notaustinpowers 3y ago
Because you're comparing a BASIC income with $1,000,000/month income. So, yeah, obviously $1,000,000 is absurd. But a basic income that at least guarantees that you have food on the table for yourself/your family can put a lot towards allowing people to explore other facets of their lives. Instead of 1 person working 2 jobs, now we can have 2 people working 1 job each = lower unemployment. Now that person who has more time to themselves + has a few hundred extra dollars a month could put it towards classes or training to begin their own business, or develop a hobby. It's well-known that less stressed people live longer, happier lives.
- missedthecue 3y agoDoesn't food stamps guarantee that you have food on the table for yourself and your family? I fail to see how printing a lot of money to hand out is going to a be more efficient use of resources.
- notaustinpowers 3y agoFood stamps have specific criteria to qualify for them. College students don't qualify. Previous drug convictions don't qualify. Being under 65 and not having kids at home only allows 3 months of food stamps within a 3-year period.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoFood stamps are just inefficient money. Print too many of them and you'll cause inflation too.
- missedthecue 3y agoBut only those likely to need them receive them. UBI goes to everyone, me, you, and bill gates. And none of us are starving for food.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoGiving money to poor people is more likely to cause inflation than giving money to Bill Gates. He'll just put it in his pile, poor people will spend it quickly.
- beej71 3y agoFood stamps get taken away if you make too much ("the welfare trap").
- missedthecue 3y agoThen we can redesign welfare benefits to fix this. That's not an argument for UBI. Most canadians or americans do not need UBI to put food on the table, so most UBI spend will be wasted if basic food security is the goal.
- beej71 3y agoHow about a negative income tax? Sounds like it solves both our problems.
- dog_boxer72 3y agoHow does changing the numbers in people’s bank accounts change whether or not they can put food on the table? We still have the same number of potatoes, same number of mouths to feed, and same pressures in place which will cause the same real economic outcome - I.e. I’ll swap 500 potatoes for a car, nothing less, money is just the medium of exchange. All that will change is that potatoes now cost $80 each
- tharmas 3y agoWouldn't the price of potatoes go up if the number of PEOPLE increased not the amount in their bank account? Sure, with more money you can eat more so there might be some increase in demand for potatoes but enough to see the price sky-rocket?