I can't imagine how you would arrive at this idea.
Unemployment benefits create a tribal, polarizing division between working and non-working people.
Basic Income creates a continuum. You can have BI + leisure, BI + freelance, BI + 10 hr workweek, BI + regular load, BI + burning out. Whatever works for you.
c.f. quote from article which provides example of divisions that could from between working and non-working people which has nothing to do with unemployment benefits:
> "How many working people would vote against taking universal basic income rights away from Nazis and terrorists? And once that is done, can we be sure they will not get an appetite to take them away from more and more people they dislike?"
You can pass amendment that every citizen is eligible for getting their BI, and power of random voter emotion will he checked.
Some states do. The USA as a whole does not.
The Fourteenth Amendment allows states to remove voting rights for criminals, but does not require it. In fact, more states allow felons to vote than do not.
The reason this is "allowed" is because the amendment specifically and explicitly permits that. I don't think that generalizes to other cases.
edit: The stamp tax is per firearm, so to be fair, this would apply to each unpopular opinion as well.
Got a cite for this? I've never heard of anyone who was against the US type of Unemployment Insurance, since to be eligible for it, you have to have been working for some time.
> "How many working people would vote against taking universal basic income rights away from Nazis and terrorists? And once that is done, can we be sure they will not get an appetite to take them away from more and more people they dislike?"
That is one of the biggest problems with UBI - how do you keep it universal?
I'm mainly responding to OP who accepts this assumption.
> That is one of the biggest problems with UBI - how do you keep it universal?
That's basically what I'm saying; UBI is not 'universal' because it will create polarization & tribalism.
Also, no need to be overly categorical—certain jobs should stay the same as they are and of course be paid more. What we're talking about here is the bulk majority.
Less hours could simply mean less days.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx
> Work, but work less (adjust according to demand as needed, adjust compensation as necessary).
"Hey Kek you are a programmer right?"
"I am indeed"
"We need you to work 80 hour weeks because we don't have many programmers, don't worry though we will give you another half ration to make up for it"
"No, i'm only going to work 20 hours like the street cleaners"
What does this fictional UBI government do then? Put a gun to my head and force me to work seems to be the most common solution to this problem historically. The problem is all human work can't be divided evenly among all humans, we need doctors more than we need fast food workers thus doctors typically work longer hours. For the system to be "fair" we can't pay doctors all that much more than fast food workers, maybe 10% - 15% or even 100% more but not the 1000% more they see currently. What if doctors decide that isn't enough and all become fast food workers instead? What do we do then? That is the problem UBI and Communism has yet to solve.
Unless you're imagining a post-scarcity utopia, UBI isn't supposed to provide anything close to a luxurious life. For example, GiveDirectly has been experimenting with giving just enough money for food in Kenya. A first implementation in the US might be even less (relatively speaking), perhaps enough to make a minimum wage job livable.
Practically speaking Communist countries also incentivize important work. Do you really think the NK scientists working on their missile just get "another half ration" more than farm workers?