Those seem incompatible to me.

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

  • PM_ME_YOUR_ZOD_RUNES@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’ve always wanted UBI to be a thing but after a discussion with my brother I’m second guessing it. His argument is that corporations will just increase their prices and not much would change.

    He suggested that instead, we use the money that we would use for UBI to guarantee that EVERYONE’S basic needs are met. Housing, food, healthcare, etc…

    I know it’s easier said than done but I’m just worried that billionaires will fuck up UBI like they fuck up everything else.

    • explodicle@local106.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      He’s assuming infinite elasticity, which isn’t how prices work in real life.

      The typical version of this argument is that the people who are being taxed in the first place are the ones increasing rents. In which case taxes can then be increased until the desired equilibrium is achieved.

      That’s not to say we couldn’t also provide a basic safety net like he describes. But that raises the question of why UBI should stop there. If our economy can generate a surplus, then why shouldn’t all humans sharing their slice of the Earth get it?

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      He suggested that instead, we use the money that we would use for UBI to guarantee that EVERYONE’S basic needs are met. Housing, food, healthcare, etc…

      That is the entire purpose of UBI. Literally.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        No he’s altering who has the cash.

        In his discussion he means:

        • if the customer is given free cash, corporations might jack up prices to get some of it.

        • if the customer has free healthcare, the corporation doesn’t see any “free cash” they can get some of. Of course they’re aware the customer should be spending less on necessities like healthcare, but they aren’t necessarily bringing home more than they were last month, they’re just retaining more.

    • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yup that’s a common critique of UBI. Landlords will jack up rent and end up hovering a huge amount of the benefits. Your landlord knows you’re all of a sudden making $12k more per year? Welcome to your new $10k rent hike.

      For UBI to function we need basic price controls or necessities provided for before it makes any sense to introduce.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        If I’m earning $12,000 more a year I could just buy a house. The reason that house ownership is low is because people can’t afford it, but house prices aren’t affected by the whims of landlords, they’re affected by availability. They can’t really be artificially modified.

    • tinwhiskers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s UBS, Universal Basic Services, one possible alternative to UBI, but more likely, we’ll end up with a bit of both, I think.

    • Sineljora@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, if money = power, and everybody gets some from the government, I think that what the UBI is spent on will be controlled. You must spend it on basic needs or your account will be frozen.

      My main worry is that UBI will be a Trojan Horse to control the spending of everyone receiving it, possibly through some central distribution system. That’s how I think the billionaires will fuck it up.