Slashdot Mirror
Support For a Universal Basic Income Is Inching Up In Europe (qz.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Finland and the Netherlands are running modest pilots, and others are being considered by governments in France, Switzerland, and the UK, and by a host of nonprofits. To gauge public enthusiasm for the idea, Dalia Research, a Berlin-based market research firm, has been surveying Europeans' attitudes toward basic income since 2016. They've found a warm welcome. In a March survey, 68% of Europeans said they would vote yes in a basic-income referendum, up from 64% last year. The survey was put to 11,000 citizens in 28 European Union states and has a 1.1% margin of error. But not everyone is ready to see it implemented right away -- 48% said they wanted to test the policy first, while 31% advocated for adopting it as soon as possible. The 24% of respondents who opposed a UBI in both years were most concerned about the economic impact, including the expense, the risk of reducing the motivation to work, and the possibility foreigners would take exploit it. Those in favor of a UBI were most convinced by the promise of increased security and freedom, namely a reduced financial anxiety over meeting basic needs, more equality in opportunities, and the prospect of greater financial independence and self-reliance.
Most European countries already have systems in place to make sure that people without income doesn't end up starving or homeless.
The cost is already there. The point of UBI is to reduce the administrative overhead.
Instead of figuring out who needs the extra support you give it to everyone wether they need it or not.
For those who didn't need it it will seem redundant that they are first taxed and then have the money given back to them, but in the end nothing much happened.
UBI isn't as radical as some people make it out to be.
Exactly. This appears to be a flaw with these "trial runs".
They are choosing a limited number of recipients, but if the government is pulling from the entire population to fund the trial, then it won't be modelling the obvious problem.
Perhaps this addressed in some of the experiments, but not the ones that I've read about.
Smoking pot in your parents' basement and collecting a check from the government to pay for your weed and doritos is not a valid occupation.
Why not?
And I'm somewhat serious. Yes, it offends your puritanical mindset, but what jobs are you creating for the folks who would lean this way? Used to be, half the population or more was involved in agriculture. Now we're under 2%, and we produce more food than ever before. We make so much food that we can't get eat it fast enough. We export food around the world. With a little better distribution and a bit of planning, we could feed everyone in the US handily, based on the food waste we throw out. We have technologically ended hunger, and are only waiting on the social and governmental structures needed to truly end it.
One major problem down. There is really no reason for that couch potato to starve, because we could feed them on our food waste at no real extra cost. Millions of them.
The rise of wind and solar and the massive uptick in natural gas is driving energy costs lower and lower. We used to employ millions and millions in energy-related businesses, but those are increasingly automated. And another major problem being mitigated. When it's trivial and inexpensive to keep the lights and heat on for that basement dweller, why would we not do that?
"Work or die" has been a reality for most all of human history. But there's no compelling reason for it to remain a reality. Give me UBI, and I'm not going to stay home. I want more. I might, however, take 6 months off to finish the novel I've been working on for years. I might see if I can push some of my hobbies and business ideas into real businesses. UBI would give me the safety net to take those risks. Will some people use it to sit in their parents' basement and smoke weed? Sure. And if they do, why should you or I or anyone else care? It's not like we don't have the resources to keep them alive.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
It assumes most people will find meaninful work, when the reality is, most people won't, especial when taxes start to creep over 50% (feudal tax rate).
If you have a UBI of (say) $1000 a month, then earning $5000 a month will be worth it even if you are taxed at 50%. You'll still get an extra $2500 to spend on non-essentials like mobile phones, new trainers, eating out or whatever.
UBI is going to pay for basic accommodation, food and other necessities. It isn't going to fund some sort of playboy lifestyle or pay for your kids' holidays or a new car.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Greece's economy was ruined by the same idiotic borrow-and-spend, trickle-down tax policies that the American right fawns over, so I don't know why you're using them as an example of socialism failing.
Venezuela's economy was too dependent on oil and their economy was bound to eat shit when the price of oil dropped whether they were socialist or corporatocratic. Their failure is simply a failure to diversify their economy.
Universal Income doesn't account for everyone not working, when they are promised income for ... "not working". It assumes most people will find meaninful work, when the reality is, most people won't, especial when taxes start to creep over 50% (feudal tax rate).
There's no problem with people not working when their work is not needed - that's the main reason UBI is being considered, the falling demand for human labor due to automation. As such, UBI does not assume that most people will find meaningful work, but that an ever-increasing fraction of the population will not be able to find work.
With a large surplus of labor, there will be no problem filling what jobs are still needed and anyone who doesn't feel like working due to high tax rates should feel free to quit so that someone without such hangups can take their place.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel