SoftestSapphicSlavery rule
RaivoKulliIt’s funny to me how some think this is some hidden knowledge. Yeah plenty know it sucks but also know that without work they won’t eat
IMO, that’s the problem. You have to earn a living. As in, you don’t deserve one, you have to earn one.
It’s not that you’ll do without any nice-to-haves if you don’t work, you’ll do without everything if you don’t work. You will literally starve and die.
That’s what’s fucked up to me. If you’re just like, I don’t want to work for a while… Then GFL feeding yourself.
So anyways, I support UBI.
Before money existed you still had to earn your living. We had to hunt, build shelters, collect firewood, process animal skins and such. In modern times society as a whole could help each other out more but there are some issues with a ubi like corporations raising prices constantly to meet the new extra money supply.
I think a better solution would be state run essentials given out for free. Like food banks, free toiletries, social housing etc. You can work if you want better options than what is offered for free but you’ll be able to get food and shelter at the very least even if you dont work. Housing reform as well to bring the cost of living down would let people work positions/hours they want to work instead of what they need to work to afford to survive.
chickenlike corporations raising prices constantly to meet the new extra money supply.
People always bring up this point but the idea that prices are an arbitrary number selected by sellers isn’t actually how the economy works. Wealth confers actual agency and leverage. If you have a UBI which functions somehow as redistribution of wealth (ie. funded by taxes on the rich or collective ownership of natural resources rather than by printing more dollars), that is an actual increase in people’s negotiating power on the market, companies can’t just unilaterally undo it or make buyer’s choices for them.
state run essentials given out for free
While this would be much better than nothing and is the better option in specific cases like healthcare where markets are non-functional, something like state housing for the poor is more subject to political backlash. Someone who isn’t in state housing and doesn’t want to be will likely see it as a drain on their resources going to the “other”, while with a UBI a majority of people would be directly made more financially secure in a more efficient and flexible way, so ongoing political support for it could come from all of them.
The 2nd argument you made is also true for people who want to work vs people who don’t. Someone working may feel like their taxes are going to “lazy” people and that hes being robbed of his money.
I’m assuming a form of UBI that is actually “universal”, so the majority of working people would be getting more than they pay towards the program in taxes.
Thats how a lot of carbon taxs work too, and people fought against them cause they don’t do the math
I feel like if there was a carbon tax that was directly putting extra money in everyone’s bank account on a regular basis, and it actually got to the point where that was happening, at that stage nobody would fail to understand the math.
Just recently happened in Canada. Never underestimate the stupidity of average voters and the power of propaganda.
They were actually paying out revenue from carbon taxes, and people really still voted to get rid of them?
People would get a set amount as their carbon rebate for the year, i think based on your previous years tax info im not 100% sure but most canadians came out making more from the rebate than they paid. The conservatives pitched the tax as anti freedom and adhering to woke climate change. Canada’s new pm Carney decided to get rid of the consumer carbon tax because he decided it was dividing canadians too much. I think an industrial carbon tax still exists.