Comment on How in the hell

<- View Parent
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

How do you respond to criticism that it is not fair to forcefully take money via taxes and spend them setting up standard of living for someone else?

It wouldn’t be for someone else, it would be for everyone. Most people are okay with the idea of Universal Basic Income, because everyone gets it, even the rich, it’s fair.

Imagine applying that universal concept, but to food and shelter. It would not only help the most destitute, but also the innovators. Research has shown that people are more willing to risk becoming entrepreneurs in Canada due to healthcare not being tied to employment. Imagine if we took away the risk of homelessness and malnutrition from not working for someone else? Hundreds of thousands would now be in a beautiful position to start their own business with far less risk to their, or their families, well being.

I would also place emphasis on the Basic part of Basic Necessities. It would only be feasible to provide just the very economical basics, which would mean a small square footage (but efficiently designed to maximize utility) dwelling (think large apartment blocks, Soviet-style, cheap to build, but efficient to heat and maintain), running water, electricity, internet (it’s virtually a utility in the modern age), and core/cheap but nutritious staple foods. We’re not talking luxury apartments here.

(Personally, I would argue Universal Basic Income is not viable within our current system, as that extra money would be quickly siphoned out of everyone’s pocket by increased rent and artificial price increases all around to capture this extra capital that would be floating around. It could only work if there were limits on rent and other basic necessities).

source
Sort:hotnewtop