That was an interesting read.
My primary objection to UBI is who distributes it and who is entitled to it. The obvious answer is "everyone" - its universal ....right?
But if it is left to nation states to distribute, it becomes a question of who is a citizen. Citizenship then has a monetary value. And what of the "unpeople", who are undocumented, the sans papiers or those who have complicated histories...or even present lives.
Do criminals get it if they are on a life sentance, to be inherited by their relatives when they die?
Will those too young, too old or otherwise too incapable of spending it themselves get it...and what safeguards would there be for people being turned into units of profit - where care homes warehouse the elderly.
I tend to think of it as an interesting idea, badly throught though, centred around the needs and desires of able-bodied western adults.
Incidentally have you seen "Wages for Facebook", started life as an art exhibition in 2014.
How does the safety net work right now? Citizens get it, as do legal residents who have lived here for enough years to qualify. That's standard. I expect UBI to follow that.
As for the undocumented, no they don't get UBI, just like they don't get Social Security or Section 8 or TANF, etc. The fact they aren't on a register means they're not getting UBI because there's no record of them. If they want a UBI, they can get one from their own country where they hold citizenship rights.
As for criminals, as soon as your are not incarcerated, you get basic income. That's a very important element of UBI. As for during incarceration, that's up for debate. Because UBI is meant to cover needs like food and housing, should it go towards covering those costs to reduce the amount of taxes required to pay for the incarcerated? Or should their UBI just be paused while they are incarcerated so that taxes still need to pay for their incarceration? Or should their UBI get to build up while incarcerated so that they leave with a windfall amount? There's definitely a debate there to be had, but the fact there's a debate there does not make UBI poorly thought out, especially when it's far superior to our existing shitty system built on conditions.
As for your other questions, I suggest looking at Alaska which has the closest thing to UBI in the world. There's a lot to learn from there.
Additionally, if not UBI, what is your preferred solution to confronting the realities of the automation of human labor?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@hecate Keep in mind that all those concerns you raise apply to the current welfare system.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well, not entirely.
For example to UK NHS provides free healthcare to anyone who needs it in the UK. In theory, you need to be registered and entitled, in practice no one is turned away.
In Egypt, basic foodstuffs like rice, tea, flour etc are subsidised by the government and you can buy them very, very cheaply, just by turning up and showing an ID card which is rarely checked.
In both those cases although citizenship might be a presumed requirement for assistance, mere presence and need is in practice sufficient.
Thw whole concept of citizenship is becoming obsolete in the modern age of migration and globalisation. Any UBI would have to be implimented globally for it to have any meaning.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit