UBI is a sham that only drives inflation. At first it looks and acts like a stimulus. Over time it just drives inflation. Rent will go up proportional to your UBI and your landlord will make more money but you won't, for example.
In year 1, Bob has extra money. By year 3 Bob's rent goes up. Did Bob's UBI go up proportionally to his rent? After a few years, Bob ends up in the same place - unless we keep injecting more money over time, which creates inflation.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/01/20/958854717/modern-monetary-the...
> The money, [...] the treasury, which prints little game tickets you can use to make other people dance for you.
They think there's a printer somewhere, and some jerk sitting next to it who just won't print enough money. If only he'd print more, we'd all be billionaires!
If UBI becomes a right, and you raise a generation who doesn't need to work, what do you do when there's a recession? Cut UBI and watch the riots start? Or drive off the cliff at speed because the non-working class can't be denied?
https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
We need to fix wages, not provide handouts. I'm for helping people that need but UBI isn't the way to do that.
Because if what you're saying is true..with any unnatural gov't interference ...there will be inflation.
(which is inaccurate by the way)
> yes, the cost might be some inflation, but predictions of inflation have lately failed
For a time, anything may remain out of sync. But you can't get more money from less workers. You can't redistribute to provide UBI, you have to print it, and that devalues the currency.
Even sillier, most UBI proposals are tied to a consumer index, such that when the currency was devalued you would print and distribute more, but with zero concern for the actual workers whose salaries are not also being inflated to match. Eventually the premium for working will be small enough that you'd be a fool for having a job.
And of course "predictions of inflation have lately failed". Because nobody is giving out UBI on a large enough scale. It's suicide. Even tax-and-spend bread-and-circus providing pols still want to be in power next year, so there's a limit to what they can print, and how widely they can distribute it.
IT's not inflationary. Its redistribution.
Also, the option for some sort of scaled UBI would be great too imo.
Quick question, why do I want to keep producing when I just get taxed to pay for those who refuse to work? So next year you've got one more mouth to feed and a lot less resources to do so.
But it's okay, print more money to give to the last guy working, quadrillions of dollars, and tax him at 99.999999% and redistribute (totally not print, not at all) those inflated dollars to everyone. We'll all be rich!
Why did the they keep producing in the 50s and 60s with a 90% tax rate?
Because they know that if they don't.. someone else will.. no matter what the tax rate.
I'm not going to explain to you why people would work instead of settle for 12k a year.
And your first statement isnt clear how it's correlated to taxes.
Further, the UBI experiments don't produce any benefit beyond one-time grants, as seen in other experiments, perhaps even less because the trickle payment doesn't give you the capital to move to find better work or anything.
Lifetime welfare has proven harmful, how will super-welfare be better? If anything has destroyed American cities its welfare ghettos and the malaise and crime that comes with it.