Do you agree with everyone in the US being guaranteed $12,000 a year in free money or in other words, a Universal Basic Income?

This is one of the platforms that Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang is running on. Supposedly, what people fear is that a UBI would promote laziness and that many would not work because of it. Another reason why people wouldn't like it is because the free money would come from those who do choose to work. What do you think?


https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/

https://www.sciencealert.com/universal-basic-income-doesn-t-make-people-work-less-says-new-study

https://www.ccn.com/andrew-yangs-crazy-ubi-plan-give-lazy-freeloaders-12000-every-year-for-doing-nothing/amp
  • Yes
    Vote A
  • No
    Vote B
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|5
752

Most Helpful Guys

  • It is a blatant lie to refer to any government benefit as "free." For every dollar that someone receives, a tax payer must pay a dollar in taxes. If people don't pay their taxes, they are prosecuted, so the truth is that the government forces people to pay taxes.

    Let's rephrase the question. If I don't want to work, should my neighbors be forced to give me money every month? That sounds like an entirely different question, doesn't it?

    3|5
    1|3
    • 3d

      Well to balance that out, no more tax break hand outs ever.

    • Show All
    • 3d

      @MScifiwriter Right! "Those jobs aren't coming back! Those jobs are gone forever!"

    • 1d

      Thanks for MHO!

  • Nothing is free. Someone is going to pay the price.

    2|5
    0|0

Most Helpful Girls

  • I agree with what you wrote in the description, a universal basic income will promote laziness and those who work hard shouldn't be obligated to be taxed to pay the salaries of these people who don't work.

    0|5
    1|2
  • It’s not free. Someone has to pay for it. Typical liberal bull shit.

    2|13
    1|3
    • 3d

      Course not, no one ever said it was, it's called higher taxes.

    • Show All
    • 2d

      @Rissyanne I see, so because I have an opposing opinion, you instantly concluded and lash out that I'm lazy. Well, I have nothing to prove to you.

    • 2d

      @MScifiwriter if you are for getting an income for doing absolutely nothing... that makes you lazy

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls & Guys Said

550
  • No for the reasons listed. We've seen how terrible the welfare system works. This is just multiplying that and all the problems by like a dozen times.

    0|2
    0|2
  • This was already tried in Finland and it didn't work. Giving everyone free money will simply increase inflation. It is a tax on stupid people because it will make the money in your savings account worth less.

    0|4
    0|2
    • 3d

      Why does it make money in your savings account worth less?

    • Show All
    • 2d

      It's all bread and games to make you feel like the government is mortician your life, but in actuality, inflation erased any value you might have gotten from the ubi

    • 2d

      Bread and games? Mortician? I don't get it. And you keep pointing to a failed model that was decades ahead of it's time.

  • I support the transition to a right-wing style UBI.

    The key is the UBI phases in and replaces a lot of existing benefits for the poor, and -also- eliminates minimum wage, once implemented.

    What's the impact/point?
    - lets be real this is not inexpensive even given what I say below, it IS an income redistribution and I think Yang is right that automation means this is more needed going forward. I'll also note from an ethical standpoint that a lot of the skyrocketing salaries of certain types of people (which tbh most of my family IS) is due to tech changes. But I'm not sure ethically why comparing myself to someone who is a manual worker -such a high proportion- of the benefits of tech should go to me, not them. I can go into more detail on that, but won't yet. Anyway …
    - some of the cost is recaptured by reducing existing programs for the poor that aren't needed (whether they are needed or not depends in most cases on whether the poor individuals need help beyond money. If they can spend the money on their own, the program isn't needed.). Not only does this reduce the direct spend on the poor, but the administrative overhead of both determining who gets the benefit and the government cost of overseeing the benefit are often multiples of the benefit. As an example, it costs governments about $2000 a month to run a shelter bed. As another example, a friend of mine's father needs elderly care. Right now our government is paying $100/hour to one agency that pays $50/hour to another agency that pays $20 an hour to the woman who actually provides his care. If they just sent him the money … massive saving.
    - UBI really doesn't mean free money for everyone, because everyone is also paying tax, and you'd basically balance things so that for most people, the tax increase and UBI are roughly a wash. Mid to high earners would end up paying a little more tax, most likely. People currently on support might end up in a similar position, but receiving more direct cash vs. services.
    - the biggest change is for people who are floating around the 'might work a little bit' or 'working poor'. These people would be both better off, but also and VERY significantly, much more incentivized to work. In a lot of jurisdictions, the -implied- marginal tax rate of going from not working to working for relatively low pay can actually be over 100% when you include clawbacks of benefits. The -main- point of the UBI from a right wing perspective is to correct this. Someone who isn't working, who finds a job that pays $8 an hour for 20 hours a week, should be -significantly- better off taking it then not taking it. If you imagine a flat 25% tax rate, then someone on UBI, who takes that job, is now up $120/week, the taxpayer is up $30/week, and the economy has a new worker. I'd also suggest that individual is more likely to be making $10/hour or working more hours next year than someone sitting outside the workforce.
    - will everyone just sit home for the 1k/month? I'd suggest most people who want to do that are probably trying to swing disability benefits right now anyway. And we spend masses of money testing to decide if they should or not.

    0|2
    0|0
  • Considering that its failed elsewhere, and it would require heavy taxation of working people to give to others who are not working, no.

    1|3
    0|0
  • We don't have to wait for Mr. Yang to win.. if you all would like to donate to my Universal Basic Income today then please send me some money, a sandwich, cookies... whatever you feel my basic needs should be! I will leave that up to you! I do accept paypal!

    1|1
    0|3
  • Yes. Yes I do, wholeheartedly. I have been a supporter of this for quite some time now. I have put many hours of research into this and it is revolutionary change that helps so many frontiers.

    More buying power to the people which can be used to invest.
    Rent costs would in theory go down as the renters would be assured a certain amount of money would go towards rent.
    It would help solve parental leave when raisins children.
    It would help give agents in the economy leverage over businesses. Small businesses wouldn't be forced to pay minimum wages.
    Helps obtain stability for individuals to focus on self actualization now that their basic needs are met.
    Automation will force us to have a social dividend of some sort eventually as many jobs will be no longer available and people will be able to pursue other avenues like art, inventions and science.
    It replaces the broken welfare system that acts as a trap.
    Those few who do decide to live off it won't be a harm to our economy as that money would go back into the economy through them purchasing items like food, accessories, movie tickets etc.
    Poverty would be nearly eradicated.
    Better equal opportunity for all. A truer sense of merit will be on display. So if even with this guaranteed income you still are at the bottom after an extended period of time that person can genuinely be blamed for their situation. And these losers won't be a real threat. Just let them live out the rest of their days, they don't deserve to die. Though realistically they probably would find something small on the side to make some money.
    Crime would lower due to desperation as a motivation being alleviated.
    Suicide, depression and anxiety would most likely be lower or at least mitigated.
    Small business would grow.
    Mothers would focus more time on their children.
    Students would focus more on school.
    Emergencies would be easier paid for.

    So many things we talk about can be assisted with and answered with UBI. This is not some left wing, socialist fantasy, libertarians have been arguing for it or something similar for decades. So it's a bipartisan issue both sides can get behind, which we are already seeing as Presidential candidate Andrew Yang who proposes 1000 a month has disaffected Trump supporters and progressives supporting him. He has a legitimately good answer for everything too. He's my number one guy this election.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Hell no... nothing in life is free... Where do you think that money will come from? TAXES!!! They'd raise our taxes to fund that.. It's not fair for those are work hard and still struggle to support those who leech of society...

    0|4
    0|2
  • First off, it's not free money.
    Secondly, y'all should prob read about and listen to what Yang, and others, have been saying about why some sort of UBI is an important shift for us as we move to automate more and more and our economy changes rapidly.
    A lot of he comments here don't seem to have any idea what this is really about.

    0|1
    0|1
  • Ya I think its great
    why do we have to force work? if someone chooses not to thats their choose --> they should receive basic needs such as shelter, food and medical as a human right not as a privilege

    yes it comes out of the working people but I bet there is a better way just it would require us actually being the good guys

    0|1
    0|0
    • 5d

      Please, set an example for all of us and adopt a homeless person and pay for them with your money - be a good guy to someone who chooses not to work. Move them right in with you.

    • Show All
    • 5d

      @MrOracle well it’s not exactly your money
      The legal tender is owned by the federal reserve, you can’t burn it... that’s illegal... but you can burn your own property yes, so paper money isn’t really yours... it’s borrowed

      But let’s say we created a model that triples your current income, it’s simple, we just pay the others less... an excuctive doesn’t need 20 million per year and now the wages of each employee triples...

      Now you can afford to pay 12k... you are still more rich than before
      Ya I wouldn’t do it now because the system is not designed that way... I would just be canablizing my own quality of living. And it’s still me before them

      But doesn’t me I won’t advocate for equal human rights, or rather extend the definition of human rights to include, health care etc

    • 5d

      You don't have a "right" to goods and services owned or provided by others - that would be a form of slavery.

      You are advocating socialism to try to make things more "fair", and socialism does actually do that (if you ignore the wealthy, powerful "ruling elite"), but it doesn't achieve fairness by bringing everyone up to a higher standard, it achieves it by bringing everyone down to abject poverty.

      Ask anyone who lived behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War, or in China before they started opening up cities to Capitalism, or North Korea, or Cuba, or Venezuela. Socialism brought these countries to mass equality - everyone was equally poor, hungry, and helpless to change that.

  • States have started making food stamps only be given out if the receiver is working a certain number of hours. They have found that just giving it out for people not working at all encourages them to just be parasites.

    Why should the same not be applied to a program that is giving out money 7 times bigger what food stamps gives out? Otherwise you would get parasites that are 7 times bigger.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 3d

      Yeah... No. The majority on food stamps are disabled and can't work or children. So, try again. Mister "parasites oh my gosh laziness" fear monger.

    • Show All
    • 3d

      But that money does go directly back to the economy as they spend things. UBI gives them spending and buying power.

    • 2d

      @SirRexington And it comes out of the taxes from my paycheck and the taxes from the company I work at that no longer is going to open that new store where I could have been manager because they don't have as much money. And the taxes of the people in the high income tax who are now less likely to expand said bussiness because the amount of money they get to keep went down. None of us are going to get our share back, but hey the lazy unemployed get some money to buy ciggs. The people actually contributing to economy get punished and the people doing nothing get reward. Or maybe we can just not tax anyone and just print the money creating inflation so $1,000 is nothing. No matter where the money comes from its terrible for the economy.

      Look if you don't think giving money to people for being unemployed has any negative effects why stop at $1,000, why not $2,000, or $10,000 or a million? It all gets fed back into the economy right?

      God fucking help us if the free money ever gets raised so it's enough to live on. Than you can have all the unemployed people hook up, marry, and have kids who are also unemployed and get their free yang bucks.

  • I agree with it. Where I live, that would only pay about 4-5 months worth of rent, so 90% of Californians would continue to work.

    I think that something like this should be enacted with the proviso that you shouldn't be getting a check if you already make double the UBI number from real employment.

    We've already spent nearly a trillion dollars blowing up sand castles in the just the past 4-5 years... If we spent even a small fraction of that on feeding, housing and caring for our "rejects", we would truly be the greatest nation on earth. Sadly, we don't, and we are not... we're just the most eager to drop the hammer on others when it blocks some rich, old fucker's plans to rule the world.

    0|3
    0|3
  • Nope, it will just increase inflation, raise national debt, and encourage large and mid sized companies to move their headquarters to tax havens. The ultimate burden would fall on the middle class and crush and demoralize it.

    0|1
    0|2
  • This is actually the goal of society. The idea is that we develop technology to the point that robots and machines are doing most jobs and the companies pay into the universal income for everyone.
    Peoples jobs will be the ones they want. Problems like not having enough money to learn the skills won't exist.

    0|1
    0|1
  • So how is that funded? That's over 3.9 trillion dollars of government expenditure. Only a moron would suggest that.

    0|2
    0|0
  • People here in the USA are already lazy and $12,000 for free would definitely encourage more laziness. Plus the liberals in CA would try to give it to the illegals too just like they do with food stamps and college grants that comes from us working people's taxes.
    And $12,000 is just as much as some people get on Social Security, but they worked 40 years for their money, so why should some lazy person get it for free?
    That is just dumb.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It won't work.. logically impossible..
    Instead it's better if USA builds a food. Beverage and clean water base supply-chain..

    Make these 3 things available for free for people when they cannot afford anything..

    And maybe shelter.. This way when they have nothing.. They will have a hearth to begin things with..

    Also if you give 12000$ to everyone...
    That money can be misused to buy drugs..
    Or many other Intents and purpose..

    12,000$ is like 3 BITCOINS its a lot of money

    0|0
    0|0
  • It wouldn't even be needed if we got rid of fractional reserve banking.

    You know how a gallon of gas cost 10c 70 years ago, and now it's 2$?

    That difference in cost is the value of your labor being taken by the family owned private business's that are central banks, like the Federal reserve.

    0|0
    0|0
  • What would be the point? That would just raise the floor making everything more expensive and soon you are back where you started.

    0|4
    0|2
  • Stupid. One step away ftom communism. And guess what giving everyone money makes the money worth less

    1|4
    1|1
  • That's not economically realistic.

    12000*328565776=3,942,789,312,000*12=47,313,471,744,000

    The United States would literally collapse from debt.

    0|3
    0|2
  • Not unless it is the proceeds of seizing the Federal Reserve and or filling the for-profit prisons with 99% of the politicians, lawyers and socialists and making them run on treadmill generators or mine ore.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I want to know where that money is coming from specifically.

    0|3
    0|0
  • i'm not rejecting free money, lol. But people will still have to work because $12,000 isn't enough to live on. I question whether the gov't can afford it though..

    0|1
    0|0
    • 3d

      That's why it's called a "basic" income. It's like a monthly bonus to help you out.

    • Show All
    • 3d

      @WhatAboutBob My point is just that it should be a help to the elderly who can't work anymore and that's kind of important

    • 3d

      Sure, I get that.

  • society keeps perpetuating the the need to procreate. it's a simple plan for the old who will not live long enough to see the end, but it will ruing society. yes. trump will win.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Truthfully, $12,000 a year isn't enough to live off of.

    I personally believe everyone has a right to a livable wage, though I think they need to work for it. I think the minimum wage country-wide needs to be raised to $18 an hour, and companies shouldn't be allowed to make staffing cuts to compensate.

    As far as providing 12,000 a year to people who can't work, i'm all for it. I would even say raise that amount. Or just teache the money out altogether and provide free housing, groceries, and clothing to those who can't work. This way, people can't say they're going to spend it all on drugs and alcohol.

    It's everyone's job to ensure the safety and healthiness of their community, this means supporting those who are incapable of doing more.

    0|1
    0|1
    • 5d

      How much of Your Pay-Check are you willing to give to the guy/girl down the street that refuses to work?

    • Show All
    • 1d

      Repeal tax breaks and pay employees fairly enough that they dont need to rely on government assistance to make it through the day. Sound fair to you?

    • 23h

      @HereIbe This is why I rarely ever get into a political discussion online, because there are always some more interested in lashing out then having an actual discussion. As for this comment, I won't be checking this thread any further. Good day.

  • People need to understand the basics of human nature and human motivation before granting my type of entitlement program. This guy is an idiot

    0|2
    0|0
  • I have to see this plan to say. I think maybe as long as the money comes out of some other budget, not an increase. Decrease military, decrease congressional benefits, reduce wasted flying and extravagant spending. cut size of govt. I'd have to see that line up. But a basic living right... maybe. reality is, some people will just blow it, but that's their choice.
    Govt kinda doing this already... I used to fill out taxes for low wage workers. Govt gives them a huge benefit... they pay no taxes and get $ back. Andrew Y is just suggesting we do more of that and everyone gets some.
    I'm open to it, but I'm not convinced yet because workers have to pay for it as usual.

    0|0
    0|0
  • You shouldn't receive money simply for being alive. They should at least expect a contribution via public service from these people, even if it's just shoveling peoples driveways.

    0|0
    0|2
  • There is no such thing as 'Free Money' . The only money the Gov't has, is what it takes from US Tax-Payers'. So if you have a Job and are paying taxes, then you are in short working to PAY the person who doesn't work .
    Say I make 20K a year working a full time job... That would only be 8K more then the person who is sitting on their butt doing nothing. Why should I work then? I mean, it's like I worked a whole year for 8k... Then as more and more people leave the work-force so they can collect their 12K the Gov't has less and less tax base so that means they have to raise the tax rate so the working people get to keep even less of what they earn... Pretty soon, the Gov't can no longer afford to give out this 'free money'. What happens then?

    Have you ever seen the signs at a zoo or something like that where it says to Do Not Feed the Animals as they will get use to it and expect it from everyone? Well Humans are 'Animals' too.

    0|3
    0|1
  • Vote C: Yes, as long as all the undesirables are removed from the country. In other words, half the people in the USA would have to leave it first.

    0|0
    0|2
  • $12,000 a year isn't much. Also, I doubt that he actually said specifically that. This sounds like more Fox News propaganda to try and trash a liberal candidate.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 5d

      Ask Burnie... It DID NOT come from Fox... you are a typical liberal. If you disagree with something then it must have come from FOX... P. S. Please tell us all, how is it that Fox is the Number 1 news and has been for many years running? Just asking.

    • Show All
    • 3d

      @BeenTher Fox News popularity comes from the millions of Americans too stupid to think for themselves.

    • 3d

      @MollyTheOriginal Fox News popularity also comes from old people falling asleep with the TV on.
      The younger audiences don't even watch TV anymore, we watch YouTube.

  • No I sure don't.

    0|1
    1|1
  • I wasn't really for it, until it was explained to me through The Fair Tax system, which actually makes sense. First of the month you get $1,000 from the gov. Income tax goes away and instead we only have sales tax. So you keep your entire paycheck from your job on top of the check every American citizen gets from the government. $1,000 isn't much, but that's rent and gas or rent and your car payment or rent and food. Anyone who has been low income at any point in life knows that $1k a month would make a huge difference.

    Also, not having your income taxed when you already don't make much money would make a massive difference. So yes, I'm for Universal Basic Income through the Fair Tax system. Just not for implementing UBI in the system we have right now.

    0|2
    0|0
    • 5d

      So you get 12K in 'Free Money' from the Gov't... The next time you go to buy a new car, planning on adding about 25k to the price... (The new sales tax). Where do you think all this 'Free Money is going to come from?

    • Show All
    • 4d

      Then where will the Gov't get the money to give every one 12K a year. You said 'sales-tax' . Example: Norway and Sweden each have a 25% sales take, so if you buy a 35,000 dollar car, you will pay approx 9,000 just in sales tax.

    • 4d

      @BeenTher you made my point for me that your 25k idea is fallacious, since even with your example it would require a 100k sales ticket to reach that.

      Don't get caught up in semantics. We live in system where everything is taxed. Eeeverything. If you even win the lottery it gets taxed. Read up on The Fair Tax system.

  • Its an inevitable development considering jobs are being replaced sooner or later to the point where people can't reliably be guaranteed the existence of a job with a wage. As such countries needs to prepare so that people can survive without a wage in the first place and a universal income is the easiest way to do this in a capitalistic society.

    Also it just makes sense in a welfare state since giving everyone a universal income is cheaper than setting up a system that tries to judge and give only as much as necessary.

    1|0
    1|0
  • It would be a complete lie to say that this is "free". Socialism sounds great, until you run out of the other guys' money!

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think it can work. Andrew Yang who has based his platform on automation has an elaborate plan.

    1|2
    1|1
  • Try not working, boredom would kill you.
    The laziest of all will just try to become artists or performer.

    0|1
    0|1
  • It's pretty hard to live on 12K a year, so I'm not sure it would benefit the lazy that much, unless you chipped in on a place with other lazy people.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No. Our entitlement spending already makes up the majority of our deficit. We already have an unbalanced budget, and we are in over 20 trillion dollars of debt as of today. Why would it be a good idea, to expand entitlement spending when most of the recipients are lazy, useless, and milk the welfare system as it is? They produce nothing of value to society, and most of them are drug addicts. Giving sorry ass people money, doesn't solve anything, it is just throwing away money. That money would be better purposed to either paying down debt, or investing in infrastructure which creates wealth and national efficiency.

    Do you agree with everyone in the US being guaranteed $12,000 a year in free money or in other words, a Universal Basic Income?

    0|0
    0|0
  • I am an AI researcher and I am a HUGE supporter of Andrew Yang. The thing is, yes, truck drivers may loose their jobs as will many people due to the things I do. UBI will NOT replace their income but it will at least cushion the blow (again, it won't do it too much) but it will do just barely enough that they can get to the other jobs AI will create. Think a few years back, social media consultant was not a job that existed or was taken seriously. And NO, you can't make people who worked for ages with their hands into programmers but you can do this.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIHPPtPBgHk

    If you are even learning AI, you kind of need to feel guilty about what you are doing.
    The new inventions coming are great but people WILL loose their jobs, they already ARE loosing their jobs because of us and we need to help. If that means I have to pay extra, that is fine by me.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Wow, I'm shocked at how many people don't have a clue how this works.
    * Robots will replace people in the work force.
    *Robots will work 24/7, require no breaks, won't require vacations, won't require sick leave, won't require maternity leave, won't require an income.
    *The problem is; who will buy the products the robots produce? Humans can't, because they no longer have money or jobs.
    * Bill Gates solution is to make robots pay heavy income taxes that will go to humans.
    * OAC just want's to force corporations to pay a 90% income tax. (Bad idea)
    * And this has been tried in different areas of the world, and it hasn't worked. Why? Because the government was just handing out free money. They money has to come from robots, and they're not quite here yet.
    * Yang and OAC want this to happen now, and it won't. This is decades away.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 3d

      No... This is here now. And AOC said a 70% marginal tax rate on those earning more than 10 million. Not 90% on corporations as her tax is not a corporate tax.

    • Show All
    • 2d

      That's an opinion.

      VAT taxes all levels is cheaper for the consumer than a sales tax. And also many consumer goods like clothes and food won't be subject to it or will be exempt from the full rate.

    • 2d

      @SirRexington
      Good. You figure out how to make more money from a lesser tax.

  • What does $12,000 get you? That won't even pay rent for a year.

    0|0
    0|0
  • thats fucking retarded as fuck. Work.

    0|3
    1|1
  • Absolutely not.

    0|0
    0|0
  • When the robots take all our jobs

    0|1
    0|0
  • That’s enough to live on for someone my age.

    0|0
    0|0
  • We get that in Europe

    0|0
    0|0
  • money is never free when the average tax goes up

    0|0
    0|2
    • 3d

      The average tax would in no way go up. In fact it would probably be lowered under most people who support universal basic income.

  • I would be for it if the person is unable to work, etc. That is what government supposed to do--provide services to citizens and make life better.

    0|0
    0|0
Show More
5

Recommended myTakes

Loading...