The case for a universal basic income | Free Lunch on Film
The coronavirus pandemic has opened the door to radical economic reform, argues FT columnist Martin Sandbu. A no-strings regular cash transfer to everyone could shake up the welfare system, bring new economic security, and create more opportunities for all. Welcome to Free Lunch on Film where unorthodox economic ideas are put to the test. Read more at on.ft.com/3GEHzKc
#economy #UBI #basicincome #economicsecurity #globaleconomy #netzero #climatechange #coronavirus #pandemic #energy
See if you get the FT for free as a student (ft.com/schoolsarefree) or start a £1 trial: subs.ft.com/spa3_trial?segmen....
► Check out our Community tab for more stories on the economy.
► Listen to our podcasts: www.ft.com/podcasts
► Follow us on Instagram: / financialtimes'
I remember those "economic stimulus" checks. I received two of them while I was woefully behind on my child support. You know what I did with it? I made several child support payments. If I was already current on my child support I would be able to stay current. If I had that and a simple minimum wage job, I'd continue to work while looking for the job I want. I'd also be able to give my kids the future they deserve instead of just hoping to save up enough for their future while giving up on myself -- a parent should be able to make better choices for themselves as well as their children. I've had some low-income parents tell me that if you haven't driven yourself to mental illness in the first few years, then you haven't done your job as a parent.
you were ought off by progressives so they could keep you out of work via Gov/Covid shut downs. Mooch on because I know you dont get the point.
We're going to need UBI out of pure necessity in the next 2 decades because of automation
People have been concerned about this since the Industrial Revolution, but it hasn't happened yet. It might, but history would suggest otherwise.
@@Alpha8713 that is true and lots of times technology disrupted jobs but people moved over to doing other jobs however I feel like the nature of AI changes everything this time around. This point is unlike any other in history with AI eventually doing everything better than a human and soon people will no longer be able to meaningfully contribute their labor to advance the economy. They would just slow AI and automation down. The efficiency and unimaginable output of these systems would more than pay for UBI. I think this is a good thing since we will live in a world of abundance and be doing more creative things that people actually like to do in reality and in the meta verse. The majority of people would finally have the freedom to do with their time what they will instead of spending most of it going through the repetitive slog of just surviving
@@syrupgoblin4920 interestingly, the Chinese have been talking about those in many of their novels. Apart from space race and biotech to create superhuman.
In the next 3-5 years we need massive infusion of jobs to stave off disaster from Climate change. We should probable start moving people off the coasts, automation is not going to do anything for us there.
@@Alpha8713 history has never seen this sort of exponential technological growth
I agree completely. I am still watching the video so I don't know if you get to it, but the most compelling reason to move towards something like this is that within 10-20 years the vast majority of jobs will be automated out of existence. It's not really necessary to have a lawyer to file a divorce, bankruptcy or deal with an estate, nor is it necessary to have an accountant to file taxes, investment advisors are almost completely useless and always have been, an automated investment program would do just as well; most physicians are not particularly good at it, and an expert system can probably do a better job of checking a CT scan for cancer, and likewise run a diagnostic tree more intelligently that a human physician. We don't need doctors, and even more obviously don't need health care insurance companies. The list of replaceable professions goes on and on, and essentially replaces the vast majority of them, except perhaps IT and software engineering. It's not that I advocate any of this, but I regard it as inevitable. In the near term future it's not just blue collar workers who will be replace by expert systems or automatronic systems -- almost every job is coming within range of advancing tech. I recall back in the 60s the marvels of modern science and technology were supposed the herald 'the end of work', and indeed, that is what is happening, whether we want it or not. A life of leisure could be lived in poverty, or we could try to be creative about things and arrange to provide the benefits of an increasingly efficient economy to the general public so we don't have to put on a uniform and toil to produce vast wealth for a couple hundred billionaires. The whole value of work thing is largely an invention of the industrial revolution. Prior to that, the mark of a gentleman (or woman) was that one did not have to lower oneself to the necessity of 'work'. Work was the province of the poor. The protestant work ethic gained so much momentum because industrialists needed cheap labor. It did arise originally from the notion that idle hands are the devil's playthings, but from that point of origin the silly superstitious beliefs of ignorant people it has been very effectively utilized by monied interests make sure need will reliably produce people to flip burgers at McDonald's for minimum wage. This becomes more obvious in today US economy where business perceives it as a crisis that there is a labor shortage. Nothing could be more beneficial to the average person, but it is a crisis to the corporation that might actually be forced to pay ordinary workers a decent wage and to create conditions of employment that are far more attractive. It is just as hard flipping burgers or being a janitor as it is to be a top investment banker -- quite a bit harder in IMHO. It is perhaps time to replace a form of slavery dressed up as something noble by what is ultimately corporate gaslighting, so that we may pursue a life of leisure doing the things we really like to do. If such pursuits involve professional life, fine, then get a job, but otherwise let people reap the benefit of technology instead of being shamed by it, and let everyone lead a life of nobility, a life not driven by fear of want. This is surely is the real promise of human existence... not the sham illusion of a life spent purposefully which in truth is more often just wasting time...working for 'the man'.
It's amazing how problems are devoid of solutions in the real world. In a classroom, the teacher would raise an issue like this and ask everyone to submit their answer and then mark the papers and explain later what the correct solution is and why. Yet, in the real world, no one seems certain of the correct solution.
There's the correct solution, redistributing ill-gotten gains from the wealthy, and then the wrong answer of the status-quo which is what the 1% vouches for through lobbying, think tanks, and campaigns. The solution is simple, the execution is the hard part because of conflicting class interests between the ruling class and working class.
The solution is Nesara Gesara and QFS ISO 20022 and it is coming soon. Humanitarian projects
The distortion is in one’s head 😅
Happiness. THAT is what matters most. My biggest takeaway from reading how people felt who were part of a UBI study is that they were overwhelmingly more happy. If it works (which it does) on other levels like economics, education, etc, that's great. But a monthly check makes people happy.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can rent it.
@@MWhaleK while money in a lot of cases cant cause happiness, poverty can (and will usually) cause sadness there are happy homeless but i imagine a overwhelming majority are Depressed or miserable
A big part of it for me as someone who has been on and off disability benefits all my life as a result of a incurable chronic illness is the sheer amount of stress caused by having to prove my health status every couple of years. The more unwell I am the more gargantuan the task of filling out the horrible means testing form that requires you to analyse every part of your life and document everything you can’t do, every way you’re life sucks compared to most people, and the more overwhelming the prospects of having to sit through a medical assessment with someone who you know will lie about what you say and do at any opportunity to make you look less ill than you are. Then when your almost inevitable rejected by the medical report, gathering evidence and sit before a tribunal panel for multiple hours trying to defend yourself like a defendant in a court case, when the very reason you are doing any of this is because you have medical issues that make doing that very thing incredibly hard. That process usually takes all my availability energy for 6 to 12 months depending on how slow the system is running, and all the time you are in limbo as to whether you’re going to keep receiving the money you need to survive. The stress of it usually causes my health to significantly worsen. When I’ve been on regular unemployment the situation is even more degrading and humiliating, although on a more day to day level. Always knowing that you have to please your work coach at every turn to avoid being sanctioned. Having to apply for dozens of jobs you know you’ll get rejected for, or even worse knowing you wouldn’t be able to actually do if by some mistake they did offer you the job, just to keep up with the quota. And then occasionally getting sanctioned anyway for things out of your control like because they told you the wrong date for a meeting so you turn up a day late, and that’s your fault. Unless you’ve been inside the means testing system you can’t know quite how personally invasive and soul crushingly demoralising it is. A UBI would eliminate all that stress and pain on the most vulnerable people in society and give them time, space and security to actually improve their health a little, and maybe even do a little bit of work with the energy they are no longer having to spend fighting their way through the system
The most attractive part of UBI would be the reduction of stress for having to prove disability or meeting requirements for the benefit of meeting requirements that make little sense. For cases such as yours though UBI would probably not suffice and you'd still have to prove your disability level for further funding. Having a basic funding and ability to pay most bills would already take away a lot of the stress.
@@chubbymoth5810 That would really depend on how generous it was. If, for example, it was set at the equivalent of a 35 hour a week job paying minimum wage that would already be more money than I am receiving right now
I don't have any strong opinion about UBI. I came here to see how it could work. I do wish this topic would be on people's minds much more than I feel like it is. I have only heard about it mentioned like 8 times in my 40yr life. This should be talked about so much that people who don't think about this stuff, learn about this stuff!
This will create a natural inflation so I am for it! That way we know what is needed.. and companies will form based on that... not an artificial one like the FED creates with large corporations destroying crops and housing... and interest rates increasing with the fed... What we need is about 50% of the GDP to go back to all of us in the US! 50 K p/yr please! as a base income to start with.. that would be nice..
I once looked into the poverty trap. Based on loss aversion and prospect theory, it seems that not the unemployment benefit which leads to poverty trap but the fear to lose the unemployment benefit. This is because they might encounter the loss in expect value first before recieving the joy of gain from working. Therefore, the UBI could result less poverty trap than traditional unemployment benefit.
read up on loans vs grants, context is on foreign aid.
this is demonstrably false, poverty trap is because benefits are means-tested so wage increases are offset by benefit losses
@@tunneling-nanotubes You do have a point about our need to attempt something different..... The ideas that have been presented so far seem to be limited to some pipe dream of the ultra wealthy elites..... Economics that is used on the Street, seems to reflect some entirely different reality from the view from an Ivory Tower..... We should consider some radically different methods of solving our economic issues, before our prosperity kills us all? Naomi Klein suggests that Capitalism has a bad effect, called Global Warming.....
The experience of living on the street offers a more balanced view of reality. If you are capable of looking into that feature of civilization, it may offer you some actual insight?
@@danielhutchinson6604 Sigma Government Grindset Rule 18382, no one should have any money, because inflation is scary, everyone poor, species extinct, no more wealth inequality, Nobel prize now please, thank you!!!
Your documentary is fantastic! Thank you. 🙂
Basic income would not weaken the incentive to work. Bad working conditions weaken the incentive to work.
The Finnish study is slightly misrepresented here. It didn't give people lots of extra money it replaced unemployment benefit for those already in work - the difference was small. What it did promise was that the money would not be taken away if they found a job.
Try saying free money won't help you to someone who's starving. If you have the basics met it gives the best chance to upskill and get a better job, otherwise you've got professionals working in chippers because the bills have to be paid. It's not to be paid a full wage, but it's help. I think the amount of people that wouldn't do anything is very little and isn't an excuse.
The overall goal is to eliminate poverty so whatever works for that. I would also add: universal child care, universal pharmacare, deregulating zoning to increase housing supply, year-round schools, etc
Fairytale
And who is going to be providing this, and at what cost?
@G Gotch the Democratic Party in a nutshell (the Republicans aren’t much better these days so maybe you could say government in general, but the Democrats have really left the reservation in the last 10 or so years)
@@Clarkson92 you have zero idea just how rich America is. we are absurdly rich, but most of that money is owned by 5% of the nation. if you took just 10% of all the personal wealth of the top 5% you could easily pay everyone $2000 a month.
Why don't u add world peace to that too
It would be VERY interesting to see what people would do if they were not worried about losing their regular paycheck; Edit: Talking about where I live
The people who say no, are the people who forgot the people, that got them to their position in the first place. Those kinds of people are the worst
I like the idea of this series , can't wait for the next episode .
If the pandemic taught me one thing is that UBI will be another level of control. They will be able to take it away when you don't obey.(i.e. mandates)
In case of UBI, that would be impossible as it is unconditional. The whole wellfare mafia would cease to exist and have to find other jobs to impose their beliefs upon others. People that do not vaccinate always can have their goolies cut off for being anti social pricks that will object to other religious freaks blowing themselves up in churches but not consider themselves far more lethal to society.
@@chubbymoth5810 The mere declaration of UBI being unconditional won't necessarily stop the actions of a corrupt administration. If they set a precedent by disregarding the constitution, well a simple regulation condition won't be hardly anything to side step. At that point, who cares about rules anyways? [progressivism] And people who fail use a credit card responsibly today will fail to use their UBI checks responsibly in the future.
Great point actually
My thoughts exactly. This is terrifying.
I might support UBI if I thought that it would replace the hodge podge of welfare programs we have now. But I fear that the old programs and the bureaucrats who administer them will remain and UBI will just be layered on.
UBI will replace just about ALL welfare programs because there wouldn’t be a need for them anymore.
Imo I'd be worried that it would go the other way, that programs (like disability benefits) that specifically aren't contained in UBI would also be cut. There is definitly a middle ground there, and I think scepticism around whether or not politicians could find it is warranted.
You always have to look at the specific proposals and context. A fair way to implement it would be to phase it in slowly whilst phasing out certain means tested benefits, making sure there are no vulnerable people left worse off. For example if everyone gets £500 per year at the start, you could freeze job seekers allowance (allowing inflation to effectively reduce it) whilst still giving more to those people overall so they would not suffer but have a reducing disincentive to take a job as the benefit they forgo in doing so is reduced. Deficit spending provides a buffer, removing the poverty trap provides increased productivity. Overall though I support a citizens dividend along the Alaska model lines but extended to all economic rents (especially land) not just oil, as opposed to an arbitrary 'UBI' determined from some calculation of the poverty line. Tax and welfare justice are needed, and both can be simplified by removing the many distortions.
Smh why would you get rid of automatic stabilizers that increase and decrease along with the economy in favor of 1k a month or w/e? Does no one understand what an automatic stabilizer is?
@@henrygustav7948 Again there are plenty of ways to stabilise the economy. LVT is key to ending the current extreme boom bust cycle. MMTers often support LVT but don't think through the potential benfits. Marshall Auerback . 'A land tax could also help to prevent housing bubbles, thereby mitigating the significant affordability gap now prevalent in many of America's largest cities. And it also addresses the issue of tax avoidance, as land is an asset that can't be parked into an offshore bank account.' Bill Mitchell ' there is still a justifiable case for Value Capture taxes on equity grounds and to provide the government with an additional tool to stem real estate asset bubbles. Further, while the taxes would be unnecessary given the currency-issuing capacity of the federal government, they would allow the government to redistribute expenditure among different spending cohorts without compromising any inflation constraints.' James Galbraith (who wrote an intro to Mosler's book) 'tax land and other publicly created property rights, such as mineral rights, parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, corporate charters, licences, patents, copyrights and rights of way. Unlike financial wealth, land sits still. It can be measured, appraised and taxed each year on its market value. The result is efficient use of land and other rights, and abundant funds for urban reconstruction, development and maintenance-a virtuous cycle of public investment, land value and public purpose.'
This was a great video, but unfortunately it didn't address the problem with UBI that I hear the most and that is the inflationary effect it could have on the economy. Things might just get more expensive relative to the UBI.
Well ..duuuuur
Why should UBI be especially inflationary? any more so than any other wages? UBI will be paid out of taxation, so the incomes of the somewhat better off will fall to pay UBI. Net effect is likely to be minimal. You are also neglecting the other side of the demand/supply equation. Inflation. rises when demand rises and supply doesn't. But those on UBI will likely be buying things with a relatively elastic supply so the pressure on inflation should be low.
The Circular Economy model prevents problems of inflation.
Well, some proponents of the UBI like Elon Musk think that with the global proliferation of AI and robots in every industry, mass unemployment will surely occur. To mitigate the social chaos that likely to happen, a UBI is needed. Elon also says the supply of goods will explode under AI/robot efficiency. So I think inflation can be controlled.
yes stuff like renter protection needs to be done.
Specious arguments. The Finnish trial isn't useful as a gauge because the population chosen was small and the members of the trial knew they had the benefit for 2 years, that is why they didn't see a massive drop in work, however make that a lifetime benefit and watch that number plummet to 0
All other support programs pay huge salaries to administrators. A UBI is a monthly check. The paper and the stamp are the only costs.
Giving the very few people who make 100,000 an extra 24,000 thousand is a smaller proportion of the income, 24,000 to someone who has nothing then it's EVERYTHING.
There are HUMUNGOUS savings to be made in Zero Value-Add Administration, no need to jail people for minor benefits fraud, massive process simplification, income security for citizens, increased happiness, more individual autonomy PLUS, and this is the killer argument, UBI will facilitate automation of work, which is coming down the track, whether we want it or not !
Exactly!
good point!
Disappointed that inflation wasn't mentioned.
Universal basic freeloading. Big Bad Bull$it.
To call Basic income handout is fairly ridiculous. It is basically just a means of giving people back their own tax money so they could use it how they want
This is the Great Reset
It is. Corralling masses of poor into dependency on federal subsides that are contingent on compliance to social credit scores, carbon limits, vaccination status, etc... And once the federal reserve implements some kind of FED coin they're going to criminalize bitcoin and similar digital currencies.
Because FT is ran by Mr Schwab entity. You've been warned!
It could well be *an aspect* of the Great Reset.
@@richardcope8102 When someone looks at a new piece of technology and says "this is the future", that person doesn't mean "this totally encompasses every aspect of the future". What that person means is, "this is an aspect of the future that's indicative of where things are going". The original comment was not assigning UBI sole membership in _The Great Reset._ You're reading it wrong.
@@acetate909 "youre the great reset" -lololol But seriously, all the despotic, distopian and defeated societies of old...didn't have a UBI, and the poor still got screwed, drafted, exiled, unemployed, and exterminated.... Soooo, if UBI was/is part of TGR, why has it taken so long to implement? Obviously even the USA can pass whatever internal laws it wants quick as shirt, like prohibition or the income tax, and yet UBI is taking forever. Must be magick elites trying to trick us into....getting paid...as part of their plan to..make us poor.... SEEMS LEGIT
We tried this in the US... and the result is the inflation.... the universality's biggest challenge would be how would we not cause inflation when we inject money without injecting more goods
UBI simply makes sense, it cuts welfare administration, doesn’t punish ppl for working (our existing systems actively discourage workforce fear of loss of benefits) and provides ppl the flexibility of refusing under paid work. Right now employers have the vast majority of the power in any work dynamic. We also have a clear an obvious flaw in our existing economic model, wealth doesn’t trickle down, it positively flows upwards. It would require a change to taxation.
Your reasoning runs into the wall, when your taxation suggestion is opposed by those who abhor taxes and own Politicians..... The leverage that money allows to the Folks who have a lot, is the power to purchase representative government....as well as Media.. UBI simply provides more cash to contribute to the flow of funds to those at the top..... We could take away their leverage by abandoning the use of money entirely? But that concept seems to scare the Bejesus right out of every Human who clings to a Quarter.....
It makes sense to people who have been impoverished and are desperate for alternatives, it doesn't make it a good program. What people need to do is first understand how our monetary system works first, you have to be able to identify the problem before you can come up with the solution. UBI is not the solution.
love the way it's simple and shortly explained. Thx!
That's a really good ending statement. More money = less stress. However, I really focused on the point of the government's spending to the UBI. If it's not ideally affordable, how can we implement it? I can still say I'm quite skeptic to the idea but the counter argument stated made UBI a more appealing and human-inclined response to the overall needs of society, rich or poor. Thanks for sharing this!
it's absurdly affordable. America is still filthy filthy rich, but over 90% of all money is owned by less than 8% of the country.
The Federal government creates US dollars for all its spending by crediting commercial bank accounts held at the Federal reserve. It has been doing this for decades and decades. It spends one way and one way only, it doesn't borrow from grandma, doesn't borrow from China, doesn't take money from taxpayers in order to be able to pay for its spending. UBI is a bad idea, but Federal government being able to fund it is not the issue.
Paying 80,000 USD for a single javelin missile ; “all good broski” Paying 20k to someone so they can afford to eat and sleep comfortably? “How the f we gonna afford that”
maybe spend less on nukes for a start. There would be massive savings on health care as a result of improved mental health with less money worries etc. The old tropes about not giving more money to poor people because they would only squander it usually come from those wealthy people who buy multiple homes, yachts, luxury consumer products- expensive jewellery - all those necessities in life...
Milton friedman says that UBI is affordable if we are going to replace all of the existing social welfare and remove all of the Subsidies and Tax credits since we can save a lots of money from lesser administration costs. There is also a proponents of UBI saying that we could put Value Added Tax not below 30% and no more than 50% for all non-essential goods such as luxurious items.
Everybody completely reliant on the government. What could possibly go wrong?
Socialism the equally poor the better slaves?
@heath gallagher Proof?
Better be bankrupted by hospital bills, right? Pray that your loved ones have great healthcare coverage and you never are out of work (even if you loath it) to keep up with your student loans. Better not have kids too since there's no paid family leave. Guess that's communism.
@@azmodanpc Right on the money. (pun intended)
Don't rely on the Government, only corporations are allowed to do that. Everyone else needs to starve.
For the US, a UBI of $800/month could be implemented for everyone 18+ not collecting at least that amount in Social Security Old Age (OASI) benefits. It would replace most of the means-tested welfare programs, but I would keep disability (SSI), Medicaid, Medicare, and for roughly 90% of recipients, Social Security retirement benefits. I'd also keep the EITC and expanded child tax credits. This would be about 207 million adults with a cost of just under $2 Trillion. No new taxes are needed as this is funded entirely by cuts elsewhere. Social Security benefits (both Old Age and Disability) and Medicare are funded separately via specific payroll taxes. Cutting those means the payroll taxes that fund them goes away (or at least should go away). The same thing applies to unemployment insurance at the federal level and for most states. For a single parent with one child, the average SNAP ("food stamp") benefit is $372/month for Fiscal Year 2024. The average tenant based rental assistance beneift is $395/month. A UBI of $800/month essentially stands in for those programs. Disability and Medicaid are still there for those who need it. One thing the video did not address - and perhaps this is predominantly an American issue - is that the current welfare system discourages marriage, as marriage may cause couples to fail income and/or asset tests on means-tested welfare benefits for which they would have otherwise been eligible. This is one problem that UBI solves because there is no means testing. It also provides a safety net for those leaving a relationship as they no longer are held in the relationship by relying on the other person's income.
Small error FT - Anchorage is not the capital of Alaska. That would be Juneau.
Thank you for pointing out this error, which we are in the process of correcting.
Most people are concerned with the cost, but imagine how much we'd save if we didn't need any ssi offices or job and family services offices because the money is just sent out without all the paperwork and interviews and stuff. My daughter gets ssi because she's disabled. I have to send in every single paycheck stub I get so they can determine if she's still eligible. Also child support statements, even though we haven't gotten child support in years. Every so often, we also have to have a review to prove that her lifelong disability hasn't miraculously resolved. And every other month, the benefit changes for some reason, even though my income doesn't change. So we get a letter in the mail every single month explaining that it's changing. Imagine if all that crap just....went away. It's not quite as ridiculous with job and family services, but they send out "health check" letters every month, in addition to anything having to do with your case. It's excessive and unnecessary. Oh and there's a whole separate waiver program for people with disabilities that's taken care of at ANOTHER office. And WIC is another office. So many offices that spend most of their time making sure only people poor enough get benefits. I suppose AI will take over many of those jobs eventually anyway. Either way, those jobs are going to be gone. And the whole thing isn't even a matter of "if" but "when". With automation coming the way it is (far beyond anything we've ever seen in history), we'll be forced into some kind of UBI. Do we welcome it and get a jump on it, or are we going to have to drag our politicians, kicking and screaming, into this new age of tech? I often wonder how bad they'll let it get before they decide to do something, at least here in the US. Because they're already content with people dying from lack of healthcare. When we can no longer afford food, are they going to he fine with us starving? How many houses will sit, unoccupied, before they concern themselves with housing costs causing rampant homelessness? How dystopian are they going to allow this to get? I worry about the near future. I think humans will adapt eventually, but living through this transition might be scary and crazy.
Many years ago I was a seafarer and I remember a chap in Kuwait telling me the government gave every citizen a payment as a dividend on the oil extracted, not sure if that is still in place or what it cost. In Norway they took the dividend from the oil and invested it, the pension fund already existed so they put it there, today Norway is the worlds largest single foreign investment fund, giving them a lot of 'soft power' and they don't have to worry about their pension fund (I spent time there and it was rather like 'going to where the grown ups live'). The UK is however hamstrung by ideological concerns inherited from the Normans that favour large corporations at the expense of local concerns (it's difficult to run a shop when it requires a room full of people to handle the paperwork and try being a builder when the large companies buy up all the land and 'bank' it). Politics at its best is expediency and at its worst it is thinly veiled criminality but it is what we have to resort to when we don't know. Ideology is what we fall back on when we don't want to know and dogma is what people cling to when some bugger finds out anyway and insists on telling us, so ideology is a major problem. Even if you can clearly demonstrate the advantages of UBI those may not be the advantages the politicals wish for. The UK, at least since 1066, has had a problem with investment, they just don't 'get' capitalism (investing in order to make a profit), Dale Carnegie was telling us this before world war one, the UK steel industry was much larger than the German steel industry, but the profits the Germans were making on their high quality output was much larger than the UK was getting. There has been a shift in emphasis toward 'inward investment', basically selling everything to foreigners in the hope they will make a better job of running it while avoiding spending anything on investment ourselves. ICI, British Oxygen, just about all the car makers (with the possible exception of Reliant), fertiliser production, engine manufacture, the railways and bus services, water supplies and electricity generation are all now in the hands of foreign companies and nationalised industries (one nice example is the DB rail freight concern, yes it's a publicly listed company, it's just that all the shares are owned by the German Government who get to choose where they will spend the subsidies). All the British aircraft industry ended up in BaE Systems who have, for good reasons, focussed on the US military (that being where all the loose cash is sloshing around). The banking sector has shifted toward catering to dubious 'rich foreigners' and money laundering but Brexit seems to have put something of a spoke in those works as we can no longer argue against tighter regulation of the international financial markets. Automation is and will continue to eat away at jobs most people are equipped for. The world is changing and the medievalists need to wake up to that.
how about all the farmers quit to live off of ubi, because only money's important and getting the work done isn't /s
@@Wary_Of_Extremes Well they could, and some people would, but UBI is a safety net so they would be living at poverty level. As things stand they could just do enough to pay the bills but people generally like to do things and 'achieve something'. They tried UBI in Finland and it worked rather well, people who had been unemployed set up businesses, some worked out some didn't but overall the unemployment rate fell resulting in a larger tax-take. Naturally the far-left didn't like the idea of people setting up businesses and the far right didn't like the idea either, but in practice politics has little connection with reality (prejudice always takes precedence over facts as it helps us deal with our feelings of insecurity). Dr Martin Seligman is the poster boy for 'positive psychology' (looking at what constitutes being healthy, happy and fulfilled), the very successful US Military Resilient Soldier programme is based on his work for example. Seligman has lots of lectures and talks on KZhead but there has been a lot of work done on this by an awful lot of people. For example using money as the only motivator doesn't work, or rather there are much better ways of getting people motivated once they reach a baseline where they are not worried about money. There are exceptions of course and I would suggest looking at Dr Zhang's work on 'greed', but beware it can be depressing (it seems greed is a consequence of poor parenting). Because of competitive human breeding strategies the idea of 'everyone doing better than they would have' has little attraction (benobo's and chimps are our closest living relatives and exhibit a lot of similar behaviours but frankly the Benobos have a better strategy). Finland? They got a right wing government who said it wasn't working (in spite of the data) and closed it down.
I believe a full UBI in the US would result in a several month lull before an absolutely psychotic amount of small business popping up.
I think the productive would leave and the country would collapse. Some people would be forced to pay for dozens of people each, and just leave.
Thanks for this video :)
Those who give, control. Poor people never learn, nothing is free. They is always a catch
Exactly. Nobody is thinking about the consequences of this.
We already have UBI in the UK - for children. Child Benefit is £1,000/ year approx for a first child and topped up for additional children. Similar amount to Alaska Dividend and universal (not means tested - although some tax implications for higher earning parents).
The greatest barrier is clearly is the tax increase on the rich. It’s not really about making good arguments for improving the life of others. Not only is it against their interests, but some clearly see the less fortunate as deserving of their conditions, vis-á-vis assuming a perfect meritocracy and ignoring social structural issues. Hence this framing of something that is by definition universal as “handouts” for the poor, which also implies it would be deserved for the rest. Full disclosure, I already pay ungodly tax in the Nordics and I am ok with more to find an UBI.
Its funny how American sponsored think tank free marketeers often fear a more equal start and there for meritocratic outcome to capitalism. Almost as if the very rich would rather limit potential than lose advantage....
16.09 you said it would "free up 8%" which is incorrect as you're not freeing up government spending you're increasing taxes so wrong to say we would only need to increase tax by 5% of income at the end. In reality the average person will have to pay another 13% of their income in tax, hitting the middle class much harder then other groups as it wouldn't be spread evenly
Love the money donated to others within the community.
Thank you.
I appreciate the segment. However, this video doesn’t address other things such as inflation due to business owners increasing prices of products because they know that people have extra money (not necessarily from more money in circulation). Also, is it necessary to view governmental budgets to be zero sum or is deficit spending OK i.e. MMT? These topics would obviously expand the length of the video since they can be real complex though…
Agreed on the inflation point, they didn't mention this. Some ignorant people might say that businesses increasing prices is immoral or whatever else but obviously they'd still want to compete and would suddenly be making far less than they could comparatively if they didn't increase prices
I think if we take a look at business, there's also a potential of lowering wages because the government would fill the gap. Kind of like how tipping servers in America is considered part of their wage. I think the UK is good on regulation of prices (to a certain extent). But things like employers lowering wages to decrease their costs and using UBI to fill in the gap, and companies raising prices are both concerns that would need to be addressed by the perception of how UBI is meant to be used and regulating businesses to stop UBI exploitation.
@@Mergle_ that’s a great point. I’m not sure if I have seen any mention of wages in any of these UBI experiments. There may be different effects depending on the employment mixture such as if most employers are small businesses, which maybe the case in Alaska
@G Gotch I’m not so sure that the stimulus bills in the US have prominently contributed to inflation since inflation is worldwide and not localized in the US. However, I know that multinational corporations also are reporting record profits on their disclosures and there is reporting that has shown 54-60% of corporations have used the guise of inflation to increase their own prices beyond their own cost increases, which has led to their record profits. Not all spending leads to inflation and more money in circulation doesn’t always lead to inflation. It’s dependent on where and how the money is disbursed. I was just saying that this investigation into inflation needs to be done because economics is not a straightforward science and things don’t always go according to models
Firstly, Inflation is mostly dependent on two factors, money supply and supply lines. UBI is redistributed, not printed as well as it bolsters small business and self employment so it builds up supply lines. When Alaska and Kuwait had implemented their versions of UBI, it stabilized inflation. Secondly, there is still competition and market forces putting pressure to lower costs. Businesses don’t necessarily need to raise prices because they will have more customers since UBI grants people more disposable income as well has shown to increase consumption. If somewhere wants to raise prices, there will be some place else that doesn’t. This is a reason why Walmart and Amazon beat out small business. This would apply to rent as well since UBI grants people more economic mobility to move to lower cost of living areas or buy a house if a landlord decides to drastically raise rent. Lastly, to those who are claiming wages would go down, they already addressed this in the video. Workers now have more leverage over their jobs then ever before. UBI functions as a built in strike fund. As well as more businesses having more money to afford raises since consumption and demand goes up.
UBI does not account for expansions and contractions in the economy and most of its proponents do not understand how the monetary system works, therefore do not have the tools to properly assess if UBI would be a good or bad idea. Its a bad idea.
@@nicewknd Alaska = NOT a UBI.
Can't stand waching this, they need an economics class!
So I just wanted to copy and paste my reply to a comment about inflation and if a UBI would exasperate it. The “New Zero Argument” essentially says or implies that a UBI is useless because everyone and everywhere would just raise their prices. Firstly, Inflation is mostly dependent on two factors, money supply and supply lines. UBI is redistributed, not printed as well as it bolsters small business and self employment so it builds up supply lines. When Alaska and Kuwait had implemented their versions of UBI, it stabilized inflation. Secondly, there is still competition and market forces putting pressure to lower costs. Businesses don’t necessarily need to raise prices because they will have more customers since UBI grants people more disposable income as well has shown to increase consumption. If somewhere wants to raise prices, there will be some place else that doesn’t. This is a reason why Walmart and Amazon beat out small business. This would apply to rent as well since UBI grants people more economic mobility to move to lower cost of living areas or buy a house if a landlord decides to drastically raise rent. Lastly, to those who are claiming wages would go down, they already addressed this in the video. Workers would now have more leverage over their jobs then ever before. UBI functions as a built in strike fund. As well as more businesses having more money to afford raises since consumption and demand goes up.
Firstly inflation has absolutely zero to do with the money supply, this has been debunked by economists from different schools for over 50 years now. Pretty much no economist believes this as it has been probably false. Secondly UBI is redistributed not printed? That is not how Federal government spending works. All Federal government spending is done one way and one way only and that's by crediting commercial banks reserves which are held at the Federal reserve. Please learn how Fed operations and Treasury operations work. Alaska and Kuwait can not be compared to the Federal government, they don't issue money, they need tax revenues to fund their spending. "Businesses don’t necessarily need to raise prices because they will have more customers since UBI grants people more disposable income as well has shown to increase consumption." Come on....this is naive.
@@henrygustav7948 the first point was to address those who attribute UBI to *just* giving people printed money. Secondly, A lot of federal programs are funded by taxation. Which , yes is redistribution. Regardless if it’s “printed” or “redistributed” how would giving people monthly dividends be any different from how we currently fund government programs? Again as I already stated, UBI has shown to build up local economies as it gives people capital and customers money to build up and sustain local supply lines. Which does influence inflation. If we have stronger and more supply lines that means we have more resources and services available for the increase in demand that the UBI brings. I brought up that point because people usually automatically assume that a UBI is useless because *immediately* and *universally* ALL prices would raise EVERYWHERE. I already know that businesses have a desire to raise prices as much as they can. But there’s a reason why they aren’t way higher then they aren’t currently.
@Henry Gustav disagree completely with op, it's clear the know nothing about economics. But I have to disagree with you as well. Inflation is connected to the money supply: money supply affects inflation. I'm not aware of economists debunking that. What?! Arguably the feds number one job is to control inflation and they do this through monetary policy, ie. manipulating money supply. And you are confusing federal government spending with federal reserve operations. Government spending isn't done by crediting commercial bank reserves at the fed reserve. The federal reserve is not the federal government. The federal government does not issue money, the federal reserve does. Both institutios spend/distribute money in very different ways.
Great video
UBI will work when we can learn to empathise with other humans. We are far away on that front.
Human-centered capitalism
it would work tomorrow. It almost passed in the 70s and they had already found a way to pay for it.
It may be something to ponder for developed nation. But, poor & developing nations can't afford UBI. Targeted Basic Income is what poor or developing nations should plan on implementing if they could stop other subsidies.
Poverty is a frame of mind, especially with a sovereign currency
But isn't that just getting close to a welfare state again? You'd get back to means testing, bureaucracy, stigma, disincentives to move out of the programme and resentment from those who come close but just don't qualify. What a country with a really low GDPP could do is introduce a very small UBI with the view to increase it later. Although citizens receiving a few hundred $ a year wouldn't make life much easier, it might pull some above the poverty line. If it went on food and fuel. You could then set up the friction free, almost automated transfer system. Eventually even those living in shanty towns can be given some kind of digital access to money, with computers costing less than $5 these days. That money might filter up to street vendors and better services from those who provide basic amenities that governments can't afford, into areas out of reach. Where are you from? There may be some practical issues I've not considered.
@@paulrussell1207 I am from India. And $5 dollars a day is a huge amount by Indian Economic Standards. You have valid points. But, I can't see that how with limited resources, huge huge population we can afford UBI.
2:14 he says there's UBI trials in Kenya, false..There's an election in Oct 2022 and one of the hopefuls is promising estimate 58£/month which is probably a fake promise considering the economic status our country is in.
we need ubi now!!
I too believe that it's time to think serously about UBI.
UBI is good but as so long as its not hooked up to the political people in power that only do things like that, in order to get into power. After that ,its down grated into more paper work like trying to get social security and benifits with a 2 to 4 year waiting period. The whole point is ,red tape is unwanted for a full ration with benefits. $1200.00 a month ,work part time/full time job and benefits is what is wanted.
Work has no meaning. Some people convince themselves that it has so they don't have to seek a meaningful life. It's easier to wear blinders and work tirelessly towards some goal. And if later we find out it was useless reaching that goal, at least we've achieved the goal, right?! It's not like we have a limited time to live. We are immortals.
What about offshore tax havens? Which are fully under protection of British and American governments.
what about them?
Unless ubi spending is directed to specific sections of economy all it will cause is increased discretionary spending snd eventually get negated by inflation
It's very informative.
But where does the money come from??
Swapping benefits does make sense. Those old programs are no longer needed.
I can't wait!! I would love it! 💕
It sounds great but...w what happens the second you don't do what they say? They could tell you to do something that is absolutely detrimental to you and they have the power to take everything away from you without listening to a word you say.
Why the conversation is always about rising taxes to then allow systems like this to work, and not about lowering taxes so that the employee gets more money out of its employment?
UBI sounds good but what is the catch?
It does not take into account spending by other sectors in the economy, does not do anything for labor power, and so there is no mechanism to control inflation.
@@henrygustav7948 Thanks for your explanation. I grew up being taught that is no free lunch in this world so I guess there is a cost to a good thing.
Can some1 plz explain why USA got cheques,UK got redudancy
And compnaies, like Walmart has in the past with other social programs, will exploit it to pay their workers even less. We'll just end up subsidising the cost of labour for corporations.
Here's a way it may become partially self funding: Lots of rich people would forgo it. Those rich people could leave the money in the fund for the next year. Invest that money in 2 year treasury bills. After a while, the earnings could start funding the UBI fund itself. Rich people could donate to the fund.
Imagine homeboy buying Nikes and Newport’s with that UBI. LMAO!
I hate how she said "they could go be poets and painters, but work has meaning" 💆♀️💆♀️💆♀️ as if McDonald's has more meaning than being a whole artist 🤦♀️ it would be a GOOD thing if we had more poets and painters!! And all the other creative fields that have been corupted by capitalism!!!!
Thank you for bringing me back to the reality that the 1000 year microscope will change at its leisure and maximal profit. I agree with a universal income to stimulate productive growth, activity, and tapping ingenuity but again the very existence of this video means its coffee table talk until 500 years from now when climate change has either been addressed or swallowed us, so as nothing for me to get tizzied about and definitely not hope for.
what if you receive UBI and you move/inhabit the poorest country in the world (e.g. Burundi)? how can you ensure that this will not happen and or keep tab on all the inflow/outflow of people?
This felt like the ‘Marxist Times’ more than Financial Times lol
Marx was into re-distributing money.....
The opening points out that the US did operate a form of UBI during the pandemic, by sending cheques to most of the population. This proved proved to be massively costly and increased the debt burden sharply. In the midst of a once in a century pandemic, this was necessary, but the idea it would be affordable as an ongoing programme isn't supported by this example.
Give him fish to eat for a day, or give him a fishing pole to catch fish so he can eat for a lot of days.
Not a single mention of Andrew Yang?
The elephant in the room is inflation. One thing I've noticed about all of these UBI shows is they never bring up inflation. UBI wouldn't do anything because the cost of living would go through the roof.
Expertly organized video, and after watching this, there are some key additional points worth considering: How does UBF(Universal Basic Food) work alongside UBI? How about UBF + UBS(Universal Basic Shelter) + UBC(Universal Basic Clothing) and, of course, UBI? The point is a "a greater sense of security and well-being", shared among all persons(at an understood basic level). But like the issue of raising the "minimum wage", say, in the US, the more pointed phrase is "the cost of living". Looking at it from this perspective, the issues and things at hand are less judgmental in nature and what one might call 'bounce energy' is always on the positive.
Eminent Domain ; Gov seizes ALL real estate corps & mortgage banks = no more rent or mortgage costs + reimbursement for any bills paid = no more homelessness.
Universal basic services via a Federally funded jobs guarantee program would provide community gardens, elder care, childcare, afterschool activitites, neighborhood cleanup, recycling work, teaching the arts to the community, having out of work comedians entertain the elderly, tool lending libraries and much much much more all at a living wage thus tying the value of the USD to 1 hours worth of labor to a minimum of $20 an hr. Work week of 30 hours, vacation days, sick days benefits. This would force employers to compete for labor, to have to pay a premium to get good employees. With this, there is no need for a UBI.
@@henrygustav7948 that sounds like a great plan, of & by itself I totes endorse a "jobs guarantee" ,,,but I also endorse a UBI cuz our great nation can afford it, and I would like to see life be a lil bit easier for my fellow countryperson...like everyday could be Christmas, charity, hope faith.
@@straygameplaywalkthroughps6480 USD's are created on a keyboard so its not a matter of being able to afford it. Its about whether or not its a good idea to continue this consumer economy of ours. We need less consumption in many areas not more and we need more consumption in other areas. UBI feeds into this capitalist monster that humans created, its not a solution. What we need is a Debt jubilee, housing guarantee, jobs guarantee, national health service, tuition free education, municipal broadband internet for all, an emergency green new deal infrastructure plan. All these things put money into peoples pockets, also takes away costs leading to less of a reliance on money for survival.
Tax is already way too high on the middle class. you want to raise it further? stop bullying those who have worked hard
Hold on, you said that if we introduced UBI it would replace OA pension. Well, that means that the pensioner gains nothing, whilst plenty of better off people would find themselves much better off. Is that fair?
1. “More spending creates more jobs, Inflation: “…” 2. “Inflation of the people, by the people, and for the people” -Abraham Linflation
I like this idea - I have for a long time - even though I've always worked in the group that would have to pay for it. Any other benefits of giving an Universal Basic Income? Let's assume it is a "living" income that is good, so neither generous nor inadequate, somewhere between a full state pension and the personal income tax allowance. There would be no need for most of the current welfare benefits - obviously - but also no need for most of the administrative costs of the welfare system: that's a big cost saving for the economy. As an instance if your income isn't tied to a job in a specific area then you could rent where you can afford to rent - although it might not necessarily be where you want to live. Tough? It's what I've always had to do. So if I'm paying, what are the (deserving and undeserving) poor doing with my money? We know that they aren't saving it, few people have significant savings, so (mostly) either they're spending it on VAT-free necessities or they're spending it on VAT-able goods. So even the poorest hand the government up to 20% of their UBI straight back. And it's fairer than a means tested welfare benefit system: everyone gets it, even the ones who pay for it and there are no unfair borderline cases. In my mind that makes it much more acceptable.
Always... we are born helpless babes who need others to work for us caregiving. Let's be clear about what being human means. We are a social species and society is for helping each other during the years and moments when we cannot do something for ourselves. None of us were born able to do for ourselves. That is the human condition.
A big part of it for me as someone who has been on and off disability benefits all my life as a result of a incurable chronic illness is the sheer amount of stress caused by having to prove my health status every couple of years. The more unwell I am the more gargantuan the task of filling out the horrible means testing form that requires you to analyse every part of your life and document everything you can’t do, every way you’re life sucks compared to most people, and the more overwhelming the prospects of having to sit through a medical assessment with someone who you know will lie about what you say and do at any opportunity to make you look less ill than you are. Then when your almost inevitable rejected by the medical report, gathering evidence and sit before a tribunal panel for multiple hours trying to defend yourself like a defendant in a court case, when the very reason you are doing any of this is because you have medical issues that make doing that very thing incredibly hard. That process usually takes all my availability energy for 6 to 12 months depending on how slow the system is running, and all the time you are in limbo as to whether you’re going to keep receiving the money you need to survive. The stress of it usually causes my health to significantly worsen. When I’ve been on regular unemployment the situation is even more degrading and humiliating, although on a more day to day level. Always knowing that you have to please your work coach at every turn to avoid being sanctioned. Having to apply for dozens of jobs you know you’ll get rejected for, or even worse knowing you wouldn’t be able to actually do if by some mistake they did offer you the job, just to keep up with the quota. And then occasionally getting sanctioned anyway for things out of your control like because they told you the wrong date for a meeting so you turn up a day late, and that’s your fault. Unless you’ve been inside the means testing system you can’t know quite how personally invasive and soul crushingly demoralising it is. A UBI would eliminate all that stress and pain on the most vulnerable people in society and give them time, space and security to actually improve their health a little, and maybe even do a little bit of work with the energy they are no longer having to spend fighting their way through the system
@@WhichDoctor1 Thank you for taking the time to share that with everyone. I'm trying to apply for disability now for the first time and my soul feels crushed just starting out. 😢
One part of this is easy to figure out (especially in USA); 1) Compare yearly spending versus taxing numbers of your government (usually on their own commerce regulation sites, like the IRS, Federal Reserve, US Treasury , etc websites). 2 ) observe how the numbers are not the same (never have been) , and that gov spending ALWAYS outpaces taxation. 3) Realize taxes at best go to pay the debts/bonds/dividends/ledgers of bills already paid for (basically, you paying taxes it akin to you paying a debt collector who bought your debt from a company that already counted your debt as a loss/deduction AND sold it for a profit).
@@straygameplaywalkthroughps6480 1. However much the Federal government taxes is no restriction on how much the Federal government can spend 2. Yes Govt spending always outpaces taxation which results in a yearly deficit for the Fed govt. A Deficit for the Fed govt is a surplus for the private sector which is us. 3. Realize that Federal taxes do not go to pay for anything at all. Instead when the Fed govt taxes us, it just deletes USD. So taxation is not about generating revenue for the Federal government, its about controlling inflation and creating a state of unemployment, creating people who need USD in order to be able to pay taxes.
@14.49 the "economist" stating it would cost 2.5 T compares it to benefits but not other costs. For example US military spending is 2T. However, even without changing most other benefits/costs in the system she also forgets that the 2.5T spent on UBI - because it is for basics - goes directly back into the economy and addresses other costly issues such as health, homelessness, etc
Great video covering both sides. Just sifted through several trash vids which were just people who didnt understand anything about it shouting it down. The tax perspective was a bit of an eye opener however i see some issues with having to claim it back.
this video should blow up 😤 high quality video
Alaska is a good model, but we need to extend the principle to all economic rents, especially land (as Thomas Paine proposed). A citizens dividend indexed to a share of a land value tax would be a holistic game changer. Just tinkering with current tax deductions is inadequate.
Outside of the big cities land does not have that much value, Not enough to resolve the problems anyway.
@@dnmurphy48 It is true land value is most concentrated in the cities, but the land dividend should be national so all would benefit. The ONS says 'Land is the UK's most valuable non-financial asset Figure 2 shows the value of land in 2016 is estimated to be £5.0 trillion, which is 51% of the total net worth of the UK.' A dividend indexed to a tax on 51% of the net value of the UK is going to be many times higher than Alaska's dividend linked only to oil rents, and a more stable basis too than a depleting resource. LVT has many additional benefits such as removing dead weight loss from the taxes on productivity it replaces.
As a former Alaskan, I have to ask, how many people did you have to talk to to find that couple in Homer, lol? Having lived there for over 20 years, I can say quite safely that a majority of Alaskans fall into 2 camps with the PFD: paying bills to keep their heads above water (Alaska is an exceptionally expensive place to live), or spend it on extravagances.. There is a mass migration out of the state during the months of November-January for vacations ($4-6,000 makes for a pretty nice week in Florida or Mexico for a family of 4), and every store you can think of has black friday style sales on everything from cars to televisions. Yes, there are some, like that couple, who utilize it responsibly, but for much of the population, it is considered "mad money."
Non of those bureaucrats talked about the savings from corruption and bureaucracy. Also how much tax generated from higher spending power. It could be much more affordable than they believed
The Federal government does not need to "save" USD or increase tax revenue in order to be able to spend. It can spend no matter how much or how little tax revenue is collected. Federal taxes are not used for spending purposes, they are used to drive a demand for a countries currency, to control inflation by controlling peoples purchasing power, to control behaviors, they are NOT used to fund the Federal government.
Great vid congrats
I already got kind of like a universal basic income. I rent my house out, I get around 2k a month in cash, after the taxes and insurances.
No. 👎
You still have to do your job whether you get up and have to sit in traffic for an hour both ways or whether you just walk to your dining room. You still have to do your job. And you still need to get paid for that job.
Where does the money come from to pay out the billions of Pounds Sterling for Basic Income? Will the Bank of England print the money? The UK has 2 trillion pounds in National Debts so how can they afford to pay for UBI unless the BoE do Quantitative Easing. This wjll lead to higher prices if there is more money in circulation. It will be a disaster if rolled out Nationwide.
I did the math, and paying every single person in America would require a universal flat tax of 15%, whats even better I that this would replace all the other welfare taxes, including the about 13% we already pay for socia security. That 15% still leaves enough room to ALSO pay every FAMILY between 500-1000 dollars a month if they have kids It's 1000% a doable tax The only issue is the cap, only people making 200k or less pay that 13% To pay a UBI we HAVE to expand the tax brackets!!!
United States never did UBI during the pandemic......there was means test, and not a regular source so not basic or income for people to rely on. A stimulus is not UBI. Anyone else noticed that the man saying what if the parent doesn't want their child to get this and when they are eighteen the government will find bad behaviors.....wait .... Did he say when their child becomes an adult, the parents still want to impose their demands on their adult child? So they were such bad parents that their child did not learn about bad behaviors and scared their new found freedom as an adult would be paid for because even though they are adults they are not of sound and mind of an adult but a child.
One thing I did notice you used £7,000 as a ubi example then tax form there but we currently have £12,570 personal allowance so the poor working familys would still be worse off. As a single mum recently out of work I'd also be worse off getting just universal basic income than I would getting just universal credit and child benefit not by a lot but it would still make a massive difference to me.
Exactly
I support the UBI, it's a great idea, cover Rent, council tax, electric and gas, and food, anything else is a luxury!!!
What about lower the tax and how will you fund this?
When you look at the UBI from the supply and demand perspective, it doesnt make much sense. By people spending more will increase the demand, and higher demand will trigger higher prices, unless there will be increased supply. The market I fear the most about is the housing market, the pricese will go up there, and it will continue to be a problem.
UBI makes sense for the sanctity of all intelligent beings, both biological and the new digital types evolving, going forward and learning from each other. Stresses and suffering only hurts, and the world we are entering cannot sustain such dysfunctionality. Things grow in good soil, not in bad.
i think there is a conflict in wanting ubi to be a mechanism that decreases the rich poor divide or is it a payment to all irrespective of a motive. the whole idea gets ruined the moment it deviates from the words "univeral""basic""income", a standard income for all.