• Your brain cells need food, even when they are not thinking/remembering. So does the rest of the body.

    People do not deserve jobs. They deserve the right to express their own will. They deserve the right to pursue their own happiness. They deserve nutrients, resources, space and time to develop their will and pursue their happiness.

    Our economy is an unfair resource voting system. It is a system of voting that only people with certain papers are allowed to vote. Each persons vote is also weighted based on the number of papers they have. Money should represent the needs and will of the people. Money should begin in the hands of the people, then it would act more like the blood of our bodies, supplying nutrients and resources for the development of every living cell in every organ of the body. Then we could all vote on the things  we would like to continue into the future. Good businesses would benefit the a lot if everyone could vote for what they would choose. I think that a basic universal income would work well if new money goes directly to the hands of the people, causing inflation, lowering the value of the old money, which eliminates the need to tax the old money. Governmental bodies would also use new money (to express collective will).

    Everybody wins, when everybody wins.

  • If the pie are big enough, sharing it is a good idea

    I think UBI is a good idea where the per capita income is high enough, like in U.S. for example.
    With the rise of the robot and AI, what's the point of working if the they can take care of it? What's the point of doing futile work that the robot can take care of?
    About funding : you can tax the rich people, especially capital owner, to fund for the UBI. After all they're the people who benefited the most from the rise of robot and AI.
    About disincentive to work : in the short run, yes people will laze around in their house. But in the long run, people will realize such a life was too boring. Maybe suicide rate would rise. Or maybe they'll start doing something. Don't know if it will be productive or not. But at least they're not doing something futile. They either kill themselves or make their life worth living.

  • That is sharing the resources of the Earth!

    Without sharing and/or some has too many while some die from hunger there will never be peace on Earth ! Let's think big ! And start sharing everything wisely . All the nations of the world had already seen enough tragedies ...

  • It can be done.

    With more free time and less stress, a lot more people would graduate, so humanity could progress faster. If someone wanted more money to pay his car or big house, he would work dirty job for high salary, and he would get what he want. Economy wouldnt be destroyed because people would have money to buy things. We would pay Basic income from taxing luxury, luxurious thing = slightly higher tax. With Basic income, also, there would be less crime because people would not find themselfs in situation where they have no choice. Also, becasue less poverty there would be less drug addicts etc. All i say is that i thinked about this idea a lot, I attacked it from all sides, and idea kept standing. It is a good and doneable idea. Sorry for my bad English.

  • Basic Income will solve many socioeconomic problems

    We are no shifting towards a service based, technologically driven society and there are many people that do not possess the skills and knowledge required to get a job in the emerging market. Why should these people be left to suffer and not be able to contribute? By have a basic income this will allow those who are stuck in menial full time jobs to be able to reduce their work to part-time and study what they want to in order to upskill and be able to develop a career that will enable them to have a job for life, not just the next 12 mths. It will also assist with the health of people, who by reducing their work hours will actually have time to prepare nourishing meals instead of grabbing fast food on the way home. Parents will be able to spend more time with their children, hence there will be more emotionally stable and happier individuals in the world. The benefits clearly outweigh the negatives. People who are against this motion state that people will take advantage and stop working. This is not true, the amount that is paid would be enough for a for a very modest lifestyle, however many people will continue to work because they are used to a certain lifestyle and the basic income will not be enough to sustain this.

  • Its a human right, not a hand-out.

    It's a safety net for all; no bias, no judgement, and an acknowledgement of humanity. We should have a right not to starve or be homeless. To all the nay-sayers, think about the "utopian" right you already have; not going to debtor's prison. We no longer have debtors prisons and I don't hear anybody saying we should bring them back, despite debt being nearly inevitable for any kind of upwards mobility, job-wise. Surely if people fall into debt it's their own fault? Or maybe debt, like poverty, is a result of a myriad of circumstances?
    Additionally, a universal safety would ENCOURAGE work, especially innovation and business. Sometimes allowing people to fail will actually encourage more to succeed.
    Finally, SO WHAT IF SOME PEOPLE STOP WORKING? Isn't that what freedom is all about? Shouldn't that be a person's individual choice instead of being forced to be a wage slave his whole life? THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS TO GO AROUND, and jobs are going away mostly due to automation. Shouldn't the people who actually WANT to work be allowed the opportunity over the people who don't?

  • Of course, it should.

    There can be no doubt that means-tested welfare only helps those who qualify and not necessarily those who need it most. Survival should never be contingent on satisfying a checklist made up by some beaurocrat whose job it is to determine whether or not you tried hard enough to be exploited by the owner of capital.

    There are so many positives that come from a guaranteed income both quantifiable and not. Guaranteed income reduces stress and anxiety associated with income insecurity. It allows for innovation through entrepreneurship. It reduces crime, homelessness, and the number of children growing up in poverty. Perhaps, most importantly it allows for people to choose when they retire.

    How on earth does it constitute a handout to the undeserving if nobody is exempted from receiving it? Suddenly, not only those who aren't working receiving welfare but everyone is.

    Much like universal healthcare and universal education so too will basic income become the right for all citizens.

  • Wealth created naturally should be shared by all

    Much of total existing wealth was not created by people, but by nature (or god, if you prefer). The land, water, air, as well as some things of value in our present technological society such as the electromagnetic spectrum. There should be rent charged for those who use more than their fair share of any of these products of nature, with the rent distributed equally among all people. That is simple, and should be self-evident.
    In addition, much of the wealth created by people reasonably should be shared by all, such as most if not all the wealth produced by past generations now dead and gone. Where to draw the line as we move into the present of who deserves what might be sticky, but the basic principle remains.

  • Basic Income Should be a human right.

    Basic income is a sum of money given to every person in a community. It will eliminate poverty, create a safety net for those who lose their jobs and gives people the ability to say no to a lifestyle or job they dont like. It should ideally be set at a point where people can live in reasonable conditions without having to rely on a job.The basic income should be only enough for people to buy food and live with a roof over their head. It’s necessary to implement because of the rise of inequality, poverty and the increasing automation of jobs.

    The cost of a basic income is very large e.G for a population of 3 million at $15000 per year per person is 45 billion dollars per year. This will be funded primarily through an increase in taxation and abolishment of old poverty support systems but should overall keep wages for everyone the same. The reason is because jobs will pay less due to employers having to pay higher taxes but the difference will be negated by the basic income. Having a basic income will not cause too much inflation because more money is not being introduced, it is just being redistributed and more goods will not be purchased because only the people in poverty will have an increase in spending.

    Some say that with a basic income no one will want to work but this is not true. There is so much work being done in the world that is not paid at all for example housework, volunteering, going to the supermarket, looking after family, research, creative projects like art, music etc yet people do it anyway. Secondly the vast majority of people are also not satisfied with just food and a roof over their head either and that’s all the basic income will provide for.

    Some say that if people don’t have a job then they don’t deserve to eat, this is an old ideology based on the idea that we have limited resources. Times have changed and as of now with current technology it’s very easy to feed and house every person on this planet. The number of people who actually want to sit down and do nothing with their life are very few and giving everyone what they need to survive will vastly outweigh the costs of supporting these people.

  • The meek shall inherit the earth

    Kings collect rent. Everyone else works in whatever fashion they are able, or allowed, or compelled to, providing whatever portion of wealth deemed appropriate by the king, to the king.

    We are at a time when people, actual humans, are still trying to wrest the ownership of this planet from kings. Major strides have been made toward that end, but the best accomplishment so far seems to be a transfer from kings to governments, which is of little value to the majority of people.

    Market capitalism can provide prosperity for all, but there appears to be some structural or functional problem with the current world economy preventing the manifestation of that vision.
    A market system can only function when all people can freely participate.
    All people can freely participate only if they are enfranchised.
    Enfranchisement in a free market requires secure capital.

    So, if this planet and its resources are assumed to be the property of all its inhabitants, and we agree that the planet has value, we can use this value as basis for an international fiat currency, to be evenly distributed to each, and secured by the various states in permanent local trust accounts providing a regular dividend.

    This arrangement places the states in debt to the people for the use of their capital, the people invested in society and securely enfranchised in the economic system.

    The human interaction would be to claim ones share, sign a social contract, and deposit the share in a secure account.

    The challenge for the various states and economic system as a whole is finding adequate secure investments. That should be possible, since if individuals were able to get secure loans of 1/4 or so of their share for homes, farms or secure interests in their place of employment, they would still have half of their income left while providing up to half of the required cash flow.

    The best case the international currency provides a sustained level of spending on basic human needs worldwide, allowing the market to respond to those needs, while simultaneously stabilizing world markets and assuring full employment availability along with all those benefits expected from a basic income. This long needed economic utility can provide a basic income without anyone's taxes supporting lay-abouts and drug addicts.

    Nothing much really has to change, only everything would, a little.
    What would this say to our children?
    When you grow up, you will take your place in society on your own terms, and if you should fail, we will catch you, and help you start again.

    This is how the meek inherit the earth. Make no mistake, the people running things will more than likely continue running things, that is how they see themselves, and they are a persistent group. The meek however, will be armed to combat the most debilitating coercions this society, this life, currently manifests, with the most effective weapon known to man, wealth.

  • "If a Man Shall not Work, Neither Shall he Eat."

    The opportunity for work should be provided for everyone. I have no problem with people doing volunteer work for a basic income (this would be a great way to do welfare/unemployment!). However, food and other basic necessities require other people to work and produce them, so why should someone who does not work freely reap the benefits of their labor? It's a slap in the face to the people who work for a living.

  • No

    It is not a right to have a basic income. You have to earn your money that your make. No one should just give you your money. There are way too many people that are looking for a free ride these days. They would appreciate it more if they earned the money

  • Socialist garbage

    No human has a right to money. The entire basis of wealth is the exchanging of commodities: you offer someone your skills, expertise, and time, and they WILLINGLY offer you their own money in return, with which you can purchase food, pay for your home, support your family, etc. Saying that everyone has a fundamental right to earn money is a violation of basic freedom; no one should be forced to pay for someone they owe nothing to.

  • Basic Income Should Not Be A Right

    Basic income should not be a human right at all. People should work hard for their money and earn the things that they deserve. It'd be tremendously unfair for the working class for basic income to be a human right. While I agree that everyone should have the opportunity to make money, it shouldn't just be handed out to them.

  • Human Rights and Income

    Having access to work should be a human right, getting free money for not working, shouldn't be provided for all humans. If everyone could receive income as a basic right there would be little motivation to do better, and work harder in society.Programs like welfare and unemployment should be temporary programs to offer assistance, not as a fixed solution to providing income to individuals.

  • Government assistance need not to be given to everybody, but to those in need of help or assistance.

    It is simply unnecessary to provide an income for all. It is a basic fundamental human right not to starve or be homeless we have programs under the status quo to help alleviate people from poverty, hunger, and homelessness. There are six major U.S. welfare programs. They are TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) , Medicaid, Food Stamps, SSI(supplemental security income) , EITC (earned income tax credit) and Housing Assistance. The federal government provides the funding. The states administer them, usually providing additional funds. A UBI is extremely unnecessary to ensure domestic tranquility. To give somebody money whom does not need it is a waste of government money, now the aff will try to argue that a UBI is a universal safety net but, we already have safety nets (the programs listed above) if one falls into poverty they simply fall into government welfare programs. There is no need for a UBI, it would be extremely detrimental to the USA . It would be significantly cheaper to provide money to those who need it

  • No, it will cost the government billions to trillions of dollars.

    Giving out a supporting basic income would cost the US 3 trillion dollars a year, and that's just if the US gives each person $10,000 a year. I know we are not just talking about the US here, but its the same with the other governments. Giving out a basic income, even at a small price of $10,000, would add up to a bigger fee and become increasingly detrimental to the government's support and funding.

  • No, it will cost the government billions to trillions of dollars.

    Giving out a supporting basic income would cost the US 3 trillion dollars a year, and that's just if the US gives each person $10,000 a year. I know we are not just talking about the US here, but its the same with the other governments. Giving out a basic income, even at a small price of $10,000, would add up to a bigger fee and become increasingly detrimental to the government's support and funding.

  • This is basically communism/socialism...

    People work for money. The more you work, the more you get. If people get the same amount on money for different amounts of work, people who work more (doctors, lawyers, engineers) will work less, because they don't need to. This will cause the society and economy to fall exponentially quickly. Now equal pay for equal work is another thing, and that is something I agree with.

  • No. Asinine. Top 1% gains

    I cannot believe that you people would want to provide the 1% a universal basic income.

    This is completely asinine to give more money to those who are already so rich. Why should everyone who works be forced to pay taxes so that the top 1% can get a handout.

    This is silly

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.