• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support Universal Basic Income?

Is Universal Basic Income a good idea.

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 40.0%
  • Free Housing, Food, Medicine plus Allowance is better

    Votes: 5 10.0%
  • Current system is better

    Votes: 9 18.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 16 32.0%

  • Total voters
    50
The Vikings. Vikings were some bad hombres with bad intentions. They raided villages and countries with the sole purpose of raping and pillaging. They liked women, and they liked silver, and they took whatever they liked.

In more modern times...

HAMAS has the stated goal of the destruction of Israel. ISIS has the stated goal of a global Caliphate and the death of all infidels.

If you remember the fighting in Rwanda... that was all about ethnic cleansing. There are many such examples.

Put yourself in the shoes of all of these violent people. Can you not conceive of the "good intention" that may have driven them? Be it pleasing the gods, jihad, even "cleansing" has the (albeit bull****) notion of a cleaning with survival at its heart.

Not saying I agree, but I'm saying I can spin it.
 
There is no such a thing as a free lunch...someone has to pay.
 
For many people who have depression, finding and maintaining a job is impossible.

That would seem to make them eligible for disability benefits - what does that have to do with a universal need for such assistance?
 
Thank you -- thus people who are not even disabled will also find themselves "useless" to society!

Who decides which folks are "useless" and which folks must work and share the rewards of their production with the "useless"?

Obviously the concept of universal is, in fact, not universal but selective - some must pull the cart that others get to ride in.
 
Put yourself in the shoes of all of these violent people. Can you not conceive of the "good intention" that may have driven them? Be it pleasing the gods, jihad, even "cleansing" has the (albeit bull****) notion of a cleaning with survival at its heart.

Not saying I agree, but I'm saying I can spin it.

Haha I have no doubt you could. Moral relativism has a long and storied history, and goes back at least as far as classical greece.

Although it predates him, to me that philosophy is best embodied by Pilate, who once famously said, "Quid et veritas?"


Jesus: "The reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” (typical Jewish moral absolutism)

Pilate: “What is truth?” (in true Roman style, implying that truth is a relative concept, depending on the one hearing it)
 
Interesting idea. Of course, the developed world would pick up the tab presumably, with everyone contributing since the poorest American, Australian, Brit, etc., is wealthy compared to the 2 billion living on $2/day. So it probably won't happen. And direct payments, perhaps through the ubiquitous cell phone system, is best. Do not give politicians the power to corrupts by providing housing, etc.
 
The Vikings. Vikings were some bad hombres with bad intentions. They raided villages and countries with the sole purpose of raping and pillaging. They liked women, and they liked silver, and they took whatever they liked.

In more modern times...

HAMAS has the stated goal of the destruction of Israel. ISIS has the stated goal of a global Caliphate and the death of all infidels.

If you remember the fighting in Rwanda... that was all about ethnic cleansing. There are many such examples.

No they weren't. They didn't do things for the sake of doing bad things, they did things to survive. Even the Nazis didn't do things because they were mustache-twirling villains. They were convinced that they were doing the right thing. ISIS thinks they're doing the right thing. HAMAS thinks they're doing the right thing. It's just that a lot of people disagree.
 
For many people finding and maintaining a job is inconvenient.

For some people -- particularly those who have a disability it is much harder then for others.
 
Universal Basic Income is certainly an interesting idea and I think it could work in a lot of places. The problem is that it would require a massive shift in culture and economy which I think would be the difficult aspect, especially with all the politicos who would inevitably seek to spin it to their own advantage.

The problem with your alternative proposal is the complexity in administering and implementing it. One of the benefits of Universal Basic Income is its simplicity, meaning the difficulty and costs of implementing it would be low.

Indeed, Universal Basic Income is much much better then the current system.
 
For many people who have depression, finding and maintaining a job is impossible.

Awwwww, poor babies. :roll:

Such an attitude toward disabled people.

I am Jewish, but American Christians would not approve such ideas either.
 
That would seem to make them eligible for disability benefits - what does that have to do with a universal need for such assistance?

Most people who have disability can not prove they need benefits.
 
No they weren't. They didn't do things for the sake of doing bad things, they did things to survive. Even the Nazis didn't do things because they were mustache-twirling villains. They were convinced that they were doing the right thing. ISIS thinks they're doing the right thing. HAMAS thinks they're doing the right thing. It's just that a lot of people disagree.

The Vikings didn't rape and pillage to survive. They did it for fun and adventure.
 
Obviously the concept of universal is, in fact, not universal but selective - some must pull the cart that others get to ride in.

Since most of the carts are pulled by engines, finding a job has been difficult since the Industrial Revolution. Thus, many people do need support.
 
Most people who have disability can not prove they need benefits.

So you think that merely wanting a free house, food and medical care should make that dream become a reality? I'm sorry that your aspirations for being found disabled are falling on hard times but that is no reason to open the gates to all manner of slackers.
 
Since most of the carts are pulled by engines, finding a job has been difficult since the Industrial Revolution. Thus, many people do need support.

Hard for whom? More engines mean more engineers, mechanics, machinists and all sorts of fabricators. The only support people need is the emotional support to persuade them to learn a skill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So you think that merely wanting a free house, food and medical care should make that dream become a reality?

Everyone should have a right to basic housing, food, medical care. In Scandinavia even prisoners guilty of murder have humane living conditions.
 
Since most of the carts are pulled by engines, finding a job has been difficult since the Industrial Revolution. Thus, many people do need support.

I have worked since age 14 and I am still working at age 63. It seems that you may have some aversion to working and wish that to become grounds for sitting back and sharing in the hard earned proceeds of others. Can you pick up trash, paint a room, nail boards together or mow a lawn? Obviously you can read and type - that alone is likely to be a marketable skill and with a bit of refinement/focus the basis for a career. Of course, most jobs require you to adhere to a schedule and to do things the bosses way, not simply work when you are in the mood to do so and in any manner that suits you that day.
 
Many people can not learn complicated skills.

There is nothing complicated about turning a wrench. But you get dirty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Everyone should have a right to basic housing, food, medical care. In Scandinavia even prisoners guilty of murder have humane living conditions.

No one has a right to the labor of another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Many people can not learn complicated skills.

That is certainly true but many jobs do not require learning complicated skills - building fences, painting walls or mowing grass is just not that complicated.
 
Everyone should have a right to basic housing, food, medical care. In Scandinavia even prisoners guilty of murder have humane living conditions.

I bet even you could become a Scandinavian prisoner with a bit of effort. ;)
 
Is it a good idea? Yes, so I voted accordingly.

Are there better ideas? Absolutely.


I definitely think that there should be a gradual fall off in the benefit above the poverty line to 0, albeit plotted in such a way that every dollar earned results in less than 50 cents of benefit reduction to avoid too much of an earning disincentive. I'm also in favour of a work requirement on infrastructure projects for those who are able that are not currently in or about to engage in education or training.

That said, I see this as a replacement only for welfare and public pension systems; I personally believe it should be supplemental to universal healthcare and free state college/trade school tuition.
 
Last edited:
It is an interesting idea. Everyone would be provided for even if they can not work. Unfortunately, some people would spend such income on drugs. I believe a much better plan would be the provision of free housing, free food, and free medical care to anyone who does not have them. Maybe that should be supplemented by a small allowance.

It would be far more cost-effective than our current welfare system. So long as it is funded through LVT I am 100% for BIG.
 
Back
Top Bottom