Let's say Universal Basic Income was introduced tomorrow

At the moment someone earning $2000 a month earns double that of someone earning $1000 a month. He earns extra due to more hours, harder work, higher skills etc.

With the income, now they are at $2000 and $3000. They are both nominally richer, but the reward:effort ratio has become worse for the harder working guy. This would cause many people to do a little cost benefit analysis in their head about whether it is worth it.

And that's before we account for the inflation a mass rollout such as this would cause. Rich people would be mostly unaffected as always, with their money in assets and real estate, and them purchasing higher quality products which would be less affected by the lower-end inflation. What this would lead to is a mass transfer of income from the middle classes to the lower classes.

>>1778861
>pic_for_ants.png
Fuck you, OP.

Do you mean true UBI as in everyone gets one set amount? Nothing extra for anyone else?

What about cripples that need a lot of care? Do they just end up less than they need to survive?

If you answered yes, then its not UBI and you have just described the system we currently have

>>1778938
>If you answered yes, then its not UBI and you have just described the system we currently have

I don't get $1000 per month

>>1778861
If someone would be giving me $1000 for free id stop working and just live simple life just like im doing now but with a huge amount of wasted time at work. Id work maybe one month a year. Maybe not even that. It depends

>>1778940
Government spending is $21,636 per person.

Do you pay more than that in tax? If not, then the government is providing you with things for free (such as schools).

The majority of the population do not contribute enough tax to cover the cost of their own schooling and lifetime government pension payments.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/per_capita

>>1778955
That's a bit of an unfair comparison though. If only people were taxed, we cpuld compare my tax paid to the benefit I gain. However taxes are also raised from corporation taxes (which I contribute to indirectly), various other taxes and duties etc.

>>1778861
nah people would just some weed and watch tv

>>1778955
The point is that government spending would cover all neccesary living expenses, not just the benefits we receive now.

Paying for it is beyond the scope of the question.

>>1778861
Stability vs risk taking is a false dichotomy. The GI provides stability, which engenders risk taking, which contributes to innovation, which increases the level of GI, etc. This is the theory at least.

>>1778861
Rent is now $2000 a month.

>>1778873
And this is a problem because...?

The lower classes are the ones doing all the work in society anyways and the upper class is the ones advancing our society while the useless middle class simply shits on everything in the name of consumption.

>>1778861
> but lets say $1000 per month for rent, food and essential bills
A flat fee woulndt do crap since rent would increase to match it (eventually).
But lets say everyone was entitled to an equivalent of student housing + potatoes and meat for dinner, hell yeah I could afford to risk starting a business. In case of failure I would lose my time only, which sucks but not as bad when youre still in your 20s.

>>1779222
"Paying for it" is usually beyond the scope of social democrat wet dreams, yes.

"Reality, consequences, the budget" these things are transient to the tax and spend social welfare advocate.