• Churbleyimyam
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    UBI will ultimately end up in the pockets of landlords, shareholders and offshore wealth funds anyway. Sort out the inequality first, then do it.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think that’s a misconception. UBI is not free money for all. There will not be appreciably more money sloshing around.

      Taxation will be balanced around the average earner giving back the same amount of money in tax as they get in UBI.

      People below average will be better off. People above average will be worse off. People way up in the 0.01% will be considerably worse off.

      Guess which of those groups keeps inventing new reasons why UBI won’t work.

      • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The well-off will never be not well-off unless they literally depend on the people’s exploitation. If they do, well, like they say, its like whoever the technological advances they depend on immediately put out of commission in terms of employment options off the table

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The point of UBI isn’t to sit in the pockets of the working class. It’s to properly stimulate the economy while giving the working class spending money. It’s meant to be spent, meant to go up the chain.

      The biggest problem right now is non competitive markets that we have to pay into like housing, communications, utilities, and groceries. We need to get The trust busting hammer out. Competitive markets keep prices low. And for markets that can’t be competitive, well they shouldn’t be markets, they should be government agencies.

      • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        UBI also addresses the welfare chasm. In many cases, people on welfare who want to work can’t, because working means they’re ineligible for welfare but their income is less than what they make on welfare. It’s a sort of trap that keeps many people in the welfare system.

        UBI fills the gap, and allows people who want to work, but who are unable to work full time, or are unskilled and are qualified for only the lowest paying, entry-level jobs, to take that work, build skills and experience, and pull themselves up out of the welfare system.

        UBI often assumes that it replaces welfare as we know it, but you’d get the same benefit if the bar for disqualifying welfare was higher, s.t. people could still claim welfare while working, until they reached some more sustainable income level.

        It’s not the main goal is UBI, but UBI would address this one very real issue we have with the current welfare system.

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Means testing means not universal.

          I frankly don’t give a shit if Bezos gets a $1000 check from the government every month, as long as the old lady with cancer, the 40 year old chronic pain sufferer, the working family with a 80k/yr income, and the 35 year old jobless dude who lives with his parents all get theirs too.

      • Churbleyimyam
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Working class people are becoming less and less competitive in the market because too much money is being extracted from them through rent/profit/interest and given to their wealthy competitors who already have an advantage over them. Both ends of the equation need addressing, which is why I think UBI is good but not enough without taxing wealth. That’s just my opinion!

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I agree. I wonder if we could create a class based Union. Like a union for anyone making x amount or less.

    • Pika@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      I do agree with this, without restriction on increases that x increase will just go into basic living services, you saw that with the stimulus checks as well. but part of me wants them to do it then go after everyoje that raised for gorging but I don’t think there is actual prevention of that