this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
1169 points (97.3% liked)

World News

39174 readers
2206 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Well if UBI is indeed a safety net, than it's really just extended wellfare at that point. Seeing how wellfare is already a quite controversial topic. I do not see this going through political-wise. Unless there is an absolute massive wave of unemployment by the effects of automisation. Which could unify both ends of the political spectrum on this topic.

I am on your side. But I just don't see this realistically happening (right now).

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People already arguing for UBI specifically mention how taxes are already paying for them, through welfare systems.

Their argument is that it's actually cheaper to pay people a lump sum than to go through traditional welfare services.

[–] lesinge 0 points 1 year ago

True, which is why this framework is doomed for failure:

"...participation in education, training or the labour market” is not required to receive UBI, and that funding for other social services are not cut."

Other services must be cut to finance this. Pretending otherwise provides ammo to the nay-sayers.

[–] spacecowboy 5 points 1 year ago

We are currently spending the same amount of money (possibly more due to fraudulent claims) on things like AISH, EI, special credits, etc. THAT money will turn into a UBI and streamline everything through less hoops and agencies, saving taxpayers even more money.

It’s cheaper to do it this way but people slap a “welfare” tag on it and hand wave it away because I’d that stigma, much like you just did.

There have been a handful of studies done around the world already if you’re actually interested in it. Almost all of them are positive outcomes.