Should there be an Unconditional Basic Income for all?

Asked by: W1ll1ph0n3
  • Basic Income Would be great.

    In a society where more and more machines take over jobs we'll need a paradigm shift.
    For the first time in Human history we can produce more than we actually consume: We have achieved abundance.
    Wouldn't it therefor be fair if everyone had the Human Right to access freely basic necessities like Food, Housing, Clothing, Healthcare and Education?

  • IT is a basic human right.

    Lots of people are struggling to get by. If we gave a basic income, then people could at least live. We have to deal with the people that we have and ensure that they have good lives.
    In response to the the person who said no, people in poor countries have more children than those in rich countries. I mean, if you need someone to plow the fields and you don't have money for workers, then you have more children to work the fields.
    We could at least get people to work and have a better quality of life.

  • Be a responsible adult and lend a hand to make a better world for all, including yourself.

    When you have children who cannot fend for themselves, you provide for them. You give your children a good life and provide them ample opportunity to find their path. It's something we should give to ourselves as adults as well. We not only should help those who make mistakes find their footing and return to society to fulfill their dreams, we should give ourselves the opportunity to break away from dead end jobs and careers that are unfulfilling.

  • I support the UBI:

    Multiple management forums have been held and many research parties have been sent out to discover one thing: Money doesn't work. After a certain point it's value diminishes into the abyss simply because people only need to earn enough to support themselves and beyond that it becomes a non-issue and non-factor in happiness.

    Money has, for a very long time, been the carrot attached to the stick for most people but that age is ending because industry itself is ending as the population grows, the automation increases as well taking jobs, and ultimately professions become extremely lofty requiring greater and greater technical skill which is not afforded to the the common man.

    In a matter of 80 years we've managed to spring forth and terminate the monetary system we have today.

  • Job satisfaction,passionate for the job

    In that way,everyone one would be on the same level,no one would be superior
    therefore if the salary is the same for every job,people will choose a job which makes them happy which they love as money will nor more be a factor
    Its true that certain job will require higher education level and therefore more money spent,but its the price to pay to do something you love to do ,not for the money but for the love of the job

  • We Already Have It

    Really, we can look at welfare as an unconditional basic income, because everyone in a first world country is guaranteed some kind of income, be it from their own job, or from their government if they don't have one. And since I support welfare for those who need some help getting back into the game, I support basic unconditional income for all.

  • Equal pay would not be fair.

    If you look at the vast array of jobs, it would be unfair to pay all of them the same.
    What would justify a new employee in mail room to be paid the same as a much more experience executive who would put in more hours and have to deal with much more stress.
    Another example would be a hospital. Why on earth would you pay an orderly the same amount as a heart surgeon?
    Would you expect a flight attendant to get paid the same wage as the pilot?
    A water boy for the worst team would earn the same as the best quarterback.
    For the most part, the easiest jobs would have too many people trying to get in and the worst and thankless jobs would have nobody even applying.
    I think a better wage scale would be based on a number of factors like stress, experience, level of education, and the need for qualified personnel. Though this is somewhat the case to how pay is determined now, I can see how many get paid way too much for what they do and others paid far below their actual worth.

  • Less humans would be better.

    With an increase of lifespan and technological job replacement, we don't need more people to get money and services for free, we need to free humanity from ourselves. Stop making/enjoying children as pets and be responsible with our population is a time of climate, economic, geo-political, and job volatility/uncertainty. Pro-choice would be a great free service choice to consider by contrast.

  • No, this won't work

    Basic Income would lead to a population becoming dependent and lazy. It would discourage working altogether why work when whatever you need is just given to you. The fact of the matter is,once a majority of the population recognizes this we will be consuming more than we are producing and that would lead to a population now dependent and lazy and unwilling to produce. This would have many more negatives but this is just one of the many ways this could damage society and the economy. Whether or not you want it is irrelevant to the fact that it doesn't work. Also the fact that ones labor will produce fruits only to have it forcibly taken by another person to be distributed away isn't at all fair if your truly want a fair system leave it to the individual to produce to fruits needed to meet that individuals needs and wants and so on. If that individual wishes to give away their fruits to help others that should be the individuals voluntary choice. But there should not be a system of government which forcibly takes ones fruits to provide for another who does or will not produce his or her own.

  • I prefer nonviolence.

    Currency/money is representative of time. One does not buy good with dollars, silver, or seashells, but with hours of their life that they've worked to provide a good or service in order to acquire purchasing power.

    While I encourage the growth of charities, I cannot justify the forcible reallocation of wealth.

    Assuming the question is implying that legislation be crafted, (rather than a basic income be provided voluntarily through charities,) this is my answer.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Vere_Mendacium says2014-07-08T02:21:43.520
I think Pros are confusing the definition of income with the function of welfare/provisions.