The Instigator
foddan
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
henryajevans
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Everybody should get a basic income as a right

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
henryajevans
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 568 times Debate No: 40542
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

foddan

Con

Some people say, it would be fair if every human being has got a basic income, just because they live. But in my opinion it would require a too big state with high taxes. More over peolpe will be less motivated to work or learn.
henryajevans

Pro

Rebuttals

'it would require a too big state'

This is not true; it could be administered by local authorities, and is hardly an encroachment on personal liberty.

'with high taxes'

The vast majority of people would not feel the strain of higher taxes, since the groups with the lowest taxes relative to wealth are the very wealthy. Francois Hollande's 75% tax on income over a million Euros would pay for it if implemented in America.

'More over peolpe will be less motivated to work or learn'

Again, this is not true. It has been demonstrated that people are not unemployed because they are lazy or because of welfare, but because of a lack of meaningful opportunities. There are not enough jobs to go around, and the current welfare system does not provide adequate standards of living. If given the opportunity, people work and take part in society. It is an elitist lie that people are naturally greedy or lazy, and is used to justify attacking the poor.

Argument

The Universal Basic Income would be an excellent policy for several reasons.

It Maximises Consumption While Minimising Wasted Capital

Because the basic income would cover all the essentials for a citizen, citizens surviving on it would consume their entire incomes, which would minimise money being stashed away in bank accounts unused. A tax increase on the rich would also minimise wasted capital. This would in turn lead to more jobs being created.

It Makes Work Pay

If there is a basic income received by all citizens of, say, $10,000 per annum, any work done would be adding to the pot of money, and supplementing one's lifestyle. Work would always be advantageous, since there would be no danger of losing the income previously, therefore people would be more incentivised to look for work.

It Values Life as a Fundamental Right

A basic income would make survival unconditional, which is in my opinion, one of the basic characteristics of a modern, civilised society. It is obscene to live in a society where simply living is a privilege to be earned.

It Reduces Bureaucracy

Because it is a flat, universal system, it does not have the unnecessary waste of a system with many individual welfare claims that amalgamate into something that forms an income. It is simple, cost-effective and easy to implement.

It was advocated by those famous socialists Friedrich Hayek and Napoleon Bonaparte, who saw it as a fundamental right to survive.

A one-off version of it was advocated by Thomas Paine in Agrarian Justice, where he proposed that each citizen would receive fifteen pounds (about $2,500 in today's money) on their twenty-first birthday, which amounted to the average salary of a worker in the late 18th century.
Debate Round No. 1
foddan

Con

Thank you for your arguments!

Firstly I would like to make clear what I mean by R22;too big stateR21;.

I did not mean encroachment on personal liberty or a dictatorship. I was talking about, that this way the (economical) role of the government would be too big. They must pay too high social benefits (like basic income) and to cover they have to levy taxes. Moreover, may be it is impossible to cover these costs. For example, I live in Hungary, where there are about 8 million people over 18. The minimum wage is about 500 dollars (in forint). LetR17;s say this amount of money will be the basic income for a month. This would be 8 mill*500dollars pro month (4 billion), which is 48 billion pro year. The Hungarian budget is about 25 billion dollars pro year.
Do you think is it possible for the state to collect this amount of money?

R22;the current welfare system does not provide adequate standards of livingR21;
With basic income we would have a new welfare system, which would provide a normal life standard without working. I could imagine, this way lots of people would say R22;I will live a normal life, spend more time with my friends, my family and earn only the basic incomeR21;. I think it is a rational threat.

Sorry to say, but I canR17;t agree with your first argument.
Firstly, money in bank accounts is not unused. It is called saving, it helps us to have a pension later or make our children study. While this money is on our account it is used to finance companies. This is the role of the banks.
Secondly, I also donR17;t see why would it lead to more jobs. If we levy taxes on big companies and rich people, they will cut there costs and fire people. It would lead to less job.

About Bureaucracy. I have told how this system would lead to a bigger state (with bigger role in reallocation). If the state is bigger, it will have more to do obviously. They must solve to have more taxes for example. Bigger state means bigger bureaucracy everywhere in he world.
henryajevans

Pro

henryajevans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
foddan

Con

foddan forfeited this round.
henryajevans

Pro

henryajevans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
foddan

Con

foddan forfeited this round.
henryajevans

Pro

henryajevans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
foddan

Con

foddan forfeited this round.
henryajevans

Pro

henryajevans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Tom 3 years ago
The_Tom
foddanhenryajevansTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was more convincing, and much easier to read. Con had better conduct for not quitting after one round.