The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

That UBI should be implemented in the western world

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2017 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 837 times Debate No: 105868
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




UBI is an undeniably good choice for the western world, as it eliminates extreme poverty and allows more economic freedom. For those who don't know UBI, or Universal Basic Income, it is where the government gives every citizen a base income of around $10,000 that you can spend on anything. The difference between this and normal welfare is that most public welfare goes by the system that you earn the amount of money from the welfare but any amount above and you lose said welfare, acting as a box as opposed to UBI which is a pedestal. This is because it acts as a base income that you can build off. This will be accomplished by abolishing most welfare projects.

We must have UBI to ensure the ability of anyone to have a, although low, stable income.


Hello ISDA,
Before I proceed to point out the multitude of flaws regarding a USI system, I would like to point out that your opening argument is very broad and illogical. You define a Universal Basic Income system as '...the government [giving] EVERY citizen a base income of around $10 000.' Do you understand that for a country like America with a population count of over 323 million, the annual tax revenue, even if solely dedicated to provisioning a UBI system, would not be sufficient to provide every one of its citizens with that amount?
Additionally, $10 000 a year is a completely insufficient amount for disadvantaged members of society. Even for the most basic living conditions (cheapest rent, cheapest food, etc.), it requires at least $30 000 annually to provide enough money for a non-working person to provide humane living conditions for themselves (providing they are mentally and physically healthy).
Debate Round No. 1


Before I proceed to point out the multitude of flaws in your argument I would like to point out the fact that 'broad and illogical' is not how you should describe it, as an opener to a debate it is meant to be broad, and illogical will be disproved later in the argument. Now onto the rebuttal.

Not Enough money in the US
Not enough money for the people

The argument that there would be not enough money in the US governments pocket to pay for everyone is true, to an extent. The US federal budget adds up to $3.8 trillion, this makes up 21% of the US economy. The government should merely Raise tax on private industry. I choose private industry because the money from UBI is not taxed which means that it will end up in private areas of the economy anyway. Additionally, private industry is not taxed enough now. This mixed with the majority of the welfare budget would come to enough money that will circulate in the economy.

The idea that $10,000 is not enough money, may seem correct from a rudimentary point of view. However, with further research you can find that trials done in Finland, show that even for poorest when you give them $10,000 it helps encourage them seek out further funds and decreased poverty rates substantially. The idea that the homeless just spend their money on drugs and alcohol is actually false, and what the real result is that the richest one percent spend the most money on drugs and alcohol.

So in conclusion the arguments you have presented as rebuttal are either misinformed or false, and my point still stands.


Well to that, I will simply reply...
Your first point is actually a very reasonable and valid solution, however, proposing such a tax reform and welfare slash would definitely NOT be popular with the public. This is evident in Switzerland wherein 2016, a UBI referendum was rejected. Trials are being run in many countries in Africa along with Finland, however, countries such as Australia and America have yet to seriously consider this. In Australia, a $20 000 UBI was proposed. The cost of this would be twice the current cost of the current welfare system.
Additionally, regarding your point on homeless people and their spending, in Australia, there is a huge cultural debate on Aboriginal welfare. In fact, in many towns, the government has begun to introduce an income card/ food voucher system. The reality is, disadvantaged members of society in both America and Australia receive generously from the welfare system. These provisions are enough to provide basic housing, food and water. However, despite this, these people still sleep on streets and beg for money for food. Alcohol and drugs are a huge reason behind this. There is debate trying to push a nation-wide income card system for welfare receivers, however, this is argued to be a breach of human rights with no supporting evidence.
The main problem is, there is lack of public funding to support an investigation which would be both lengthy and costly.
In fact, if the government would manage (somehow) to pass a tax reform on private industries, the money would be much better off refining the current welfare system instead of abolishing it completely and replacing it with an impractical UBI system. The main aim of welfare is to aid disadvantaged members of society, not to make government money distribution equal.
Debate Round No. 2


As someone who lives in Australia and has personal experience with the Aboriginal debate, you are again misinformed. I will now lay out my rebuttal

Difference between income card and UBI
Abolish not refine

Addressing your point on popularity. This debate is about whether they should do so, not how the government would get it through Parliament. Besides, your reason for the popularity was a $20,000 proposal. However, I am proposing a $10,000 UBI, which as logic entails is the correct amount of the budget.

You pointed out that the income card doesn't work. This is true, but that is not what we are suggesting, isn't a card to control what you spend your welfare on, which is what an income card is, we are suggesting we give them money free for them to spend.

You said that we should refine the welfare instead of replacing it with completely different system, however, the welfare program has been proven not to work as any amount above it's small benefit window and you lose the welfare leaving you with less.

In conclusion, UBI is a better system, as opposed to normal welfare. This debate is not about getting it through Parliament, or what completely different systems do. This debate is about, what has already been proven as the better system, UBI.


You have still failed to identify my main point...
a UBI system is not a feasible replacement for welfare. The truth is, ordinary middle class, working citizens in their prime working age range DO NOT require the payment from a UBI system. It baffles me how you have failed to understand why currently, there is no country who has even begun to seriously consider this. The only country so far to pass a referendum is Switzerland, in which it was rejected 3 to 1.
You claim to be Australian, I am as well. However, in your last argument, you failed to tell me how I was misinformed on the Aboriginal debate. Over the last 5 years, I have worked closely with a school foundation providing not financial funds, but things such as toiletries and access to health and nutritional education to a small town community with a large percentile of Aboriginal residents. We have seen that these provisions seem to have led to a greater improvement in the overall health of the community and we have even begun to get in close contact with some of the elders.
But, back to the UBI point, I will once again enlighten you on reality. The truth is, many citizens in civilisation are born disadvantaged. Some children have parents with a bad influence, others have faced abused as young children and in many cases, these people end up broken mentally the homeless people on streets living off welfare. It is not that they are lazy and refuse to work. They were never taught the work ethic and never experienced a feeling of belonging to our society. These are the members of society who require the help of welfare.
You seem to be overly confident that you have found a feasible UBI solution. However, you fail to realise that if you, genuinely, had found a practical, feasible UBI solution, you would not be on arguing. The popularity of a notion is directly correlated to how practical and real it is for the rest of society.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Turdle 3 years ago
I would like to thank you for the educated, reasonable debate. However, I am not worried about who officially wins the debate. Quite simply, I strived to challenge your thoughts and ideas while meanwhile, having mine challenged too. This platform is a great way for both parties in a debate to learn something worthwhile.
Posted by ISDA 3 years ago
Dear Turdle,
I would like to inform you that I believe you have won this debate. Me being stubborn is just a debate facade. You I concede probably have more experience than me, you make good points and are right. I still believe that there is still a way to effectively implement UBI, and I still believe that you also missed some of my points. However, you argued better and beat me. Congratulations.
From, ISDA
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.