Those seem incompatible to me.

(UBI means Universal Basic Income, giving everyone a basic income, for free)

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    And that money could more easily be adjusted/reduced as my income grows which smooths the welfare cliff.

    It’s important to note that UBI isn’t supposed to be a form of welfare. The idea is it’s a basic citizen right. It’s not means tested in any way so you should get it regardless of your income otherwise you’re disincentivised to increase your income (which is a problem a lot of benefits currently have), if I go to work for 8 hours a day and then come home and have the exact same or less money than I would have had on benefits then what’s the point? The government, mostly the conservative types, would like to classify that as lazy scrounging but it’s just economic savvy.

    If I get UBI whatever then any extra money I earn is for luxuries, I can then spend that money and contribute to the economy rather than holding on to it in case the boiler decides to blow up all the car breaks down or something which is what most people are currently doing.

    Everyone benefits when everyone benefits.

    • klaus_the_fish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I completely agree and (hopefully) understand that. I only mention it as welfare because I believe that’s harder to argue against and at least gets us most of the way there.

      As for working 8 hours and still making the same as you would on benefits, I see this issue today constantly in the current (US) system. Especially around people with disabilities who would otherwise be able to work.

      UBI is the ideal, but replacing the complex welfare system with something cash based (similar to UBI, or exactly as UBI for certain demographics) would be a great first step.