It’s the application of the proposed UBI in any welfare economy out there.
The proposed UBI does not make much sense. On that scenario the instant inflation of giving everyone X extra money would make the UBI irrelevant and unsuitable for a living.
What you are talking were proposed by some groups when IMV was implemented. But it was promptly taken out of consideration as it makes no economical sense whatsoever.
Difference between welfare programs and this UBI is that welfare programs are subject to other considerations. Like only first 5000 applicants get it, or the distribute X amount of millions between the Y people with more points, or they are subject to any other criteria. We have those here too. Difference is that UBI has no other criteria. If you don’t have that income that income is given to you. It’s how a UBI is applied. Giving 500€ to everyone just to take 500€ out of taxes from most to maintain it and letting inflation make UBI quantity irrisorium would make no sense.
In order to UBI to work the quantity given must be a living wage. And a living wage would always be close the most common wage in a developed country. I don’t see how it would be possible por a UBI to be a living wage and then the most common wage being approximately double that, it doesn’t seem feasible.
Universal means that ALL people universally have access to that basic income. By their own ways or with help.
Getting radical with the definition makes no sense.
Give everyone 500€, then take everyone who is working 500€ in taxes. Dafuck? No need for the unreasonable and additional paperwork of doing it the long way.
The purpose is ensuring everyone have at minimum 500€ (example) of disposable income. And that is rationally achieve the way I have explained that’s being done in all welfare countries that are taking this as an objective.
Still against it, one way or the other. But the other way seems unnecessarily convoluted for no rational reasons.
How it’s supposed to be kept a livable wage from that kind of proposed UBI without working salary when UBI+Minimum wage would result in the most common income, making automatically just UBI way below the minimum for a decent living in that society?
How does a more convoluted way of giving money solves any of the issues that arises from just giving money until a threshold?
Why it makes any sense to make it like that anyway?
I call an UBI the law that ensures that there is an Universal Basic Income. So if we set out universal basic income in 500€, no person in this country will have less than 500€ a month, simple as that.
And anyway that has severe issues. So I really think that we should be “giving jobs”, by reducing working hours of everyone, instead of money.
It’s the application of the proposed UBI in any welfare economy out there.
The proposed UBI does not make much sense. On that scenario the instant inflation of giving everyone X extra money would make the UBI irrelevant and unsuitable for a living.
What you are talking were proposed by some groups when IMV was implemented. But it was promptly taken out of consideration as it makes no economical sense whatsoever.
Difference between welfare programs and this UBI is that welfare programs are subject to other considerations. Like only first 5000 applicants get it, or the distribute X amount of millions between the Y people with more points, or they are subject to any other criteria. We have those here too. Difference is that UBI has no other criteria. If you don’t have that income that income is given to you. It’s how a UBI is applied. Giving 500€ to everyone just to take 500€ out of taxes from most to maintain it and letting inflation make UBI quantity irrisorium would make no sense.
In order to UBI to work the quantity given must be a living wage. And a living wage would always be close the most common wage in a developed country. I don’t see how it would be possible por a UBI to be a living wage and then the most common wage being approximately double that, it doesn’t seem feasible.
The U in UBI is universal. If not everyone gets it, it’s not UBI.
Universal means that ALL people universally have access to that basic income. By their own ways or with help.
Getting radical with the definition makes no sense.
Give everyone 500€, then take everyone who is working 500€ in taxes. Dafuck? No need for the unreasonable and additional paperwork of doing it the long way.
The purpose is ensuring everyone have at minimum 500€ (example) of disposable income. And that is rationally achieve the way I have explained that’s being done in all welfare countries that are taking this as an objective.
Still against it, one way or the other. But the other way seems unnecessarily convoluted for no rational reasons.
You are describing GMI and not UBI. Not sure what its confusing about universal
A lot is confusing.
What issue does it solve to give Elon Musk $500?
How it’s supposed to be kept a livable wage from that kind of proposed UBI without working salary when UBI+Minimum wage would result in the most common income, making automatically just UBI way below the minimum for a decent living in that society?
How does a more convoluted way of giving money solves any of the issues that arises from just giving money until a threshold?
Why it makes any sense to make it like that anyway?
I call an UBI the law that ensures that there is an Universal Basic Income. So if we set out universal basic income in 500€, no person in this country will have less than 500€ a month, simple as that.
And anyway that has severe issues. So I really think that we should be “giving jobs”, by reducing working hours of everyone, instead of money.
You can call it UBI but that’s not what anyone else means by UBI, so you’re just confusing the debate by calling it that.