2 ms·
> The cuts described in your first link didn't happen, because of public pressure against the cuts. Yes the did (and are doing). They didn’t get the 6.7k, but
by jncfhnb 2y ago
> The cuts described in your first link didn't happen, because of public pressure against the cuts.
Yes the did (and are doing). They didn’t get the 6.7k, but they did have to make cuts in large part because the payout was unsustainably high.
> How is that an argument against the service?
Don’t give a shit. I’m arguing against your claim that there’s no evidence UBI could lead to cuts in public services.
- wizzwizz4 2y agoYou're saying "this cost is bad because if we don't cut this cost, we have to cut other costs", but that's true for the other costs as well. The original claim was asymmetrical (that UBI programmes cost money for no benefit; i.e., that they're a waste of money). You can't use a symmetrical argument to support an asymmetrical claim.