Will Universal Basic Income be beneficial to the United States? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Will Universal Basic Income be beneficial to the United States?
in Politics

By BaconToesBaconToes 202 Pts
As Andrew Yang, Democratic presidential candidate proposed to add a UBI of $1000 per month, there has been an increase of discussions about UBI. I personally believe this will have a positive impact on America, both economically and socially.
His website, https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/, addresses many concerns and talks about how he is going to implement it. He has supporters from both Republicans and Democrats, and he already has over 85k donors. 

You don't have to look beyond the US to see the effects of UBI. Alaska has a "UBI" that is funded by oil and there were great results. The results were that full-time employment did not change and that part-time employment increased by 17%. Alaskans also support this despite the prospect of raising taxes, showing their satisfaction with it. 
 

The Roosevelt Institute projects that a UBI would create 4.6 million jobs and grow the economy by 12 percent continuously
There are so many more benefits of UBI, such as allowing workers to choose what jobs they want with the conditions they want(gives workers financial freedom to demand better conditions), allows people to get out of abusive relationships(many people cannot get out of abusive relationships because they cannot afford to), and improves physical health(tests in Canada showed an 8.5% decrease in hospitalization rates). There are so many other test pilots that resulted in numerous benefits.


Plaffelvohfen
  1. Live Poll

    Should the US implement a UBI?

    6 votes
    1. Yes
      16.67%
    2. No
      83.33%
i fart cows



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • The realities of Universal Basic Income [d. UBI] as an Economic Mode and the questions of its success upon implementation within the United States as said Economic Mode is entirely predicated on the question of 'When' and not 'Whether'. The questions that we should concern ourselves with are: 

              i) Under what circumstances ought we find ourselves for UBI to prove successful? or Under what conditions can UBI succeed?
              ii) When shall this condition present itself? 

    UBI will always be a necessity for a general population under the strict, yet inevitable conditions of complete and utter automated industry. In a future where no mere man can compete with that of a machine on the grounds of production (Or rather, any other form of manual labour) shall UBI become such a necessity. This future must, of absolute nature and to the greatest of degrees, depict an automated workforce, where competition between man and machine is futile. In such a scenario, the inefficiency, imperfection, and high maintenance of man will contribute to the monopolizing of automated production. Inversely, the perfection, efficiency and low-cost maintenance of automated industry will render all forms of commerce and commodities dirt-cheap. The principle of basic economic theory entails the cost to produce a product will thereby determine its cost of the product itself within a given market (Among other factors). You may ask, where does UBI fall into this? 

    UBI, provided to all, shall serve as both, a 'Safety Net' for those who do not wish to starve, and a 'Hammock' [q. T. Sowell] for those to live off of the fruits of the government. Manual Labor must render obsolete in such a scenario, so the populous, who find themselves unemployed, no longer find the need to work; thereby devoting their time to personal hobbies and interests. Seeing as all commodities in such a world future are products of machines, and are therefore cheap to produce, and cheap to buy, a single individual will only need a small amount from the government (given todays standards) to fulfill the basics of needs of that individual annually. This sequence in events must occur prior to the implementation of UBI. 

    It is therefore an impossibility, or rather an improbability to impose an effective UBI model upon any market where competition is still feasible without creating grave ramifications. Such ramifications include the immense debt accumulated by the government in the hopes of granting paychecks to citizens of each nation and the deterrence of individuals to re-enter the job market [q. T. Sowell, W. Williams, F. Hayek] (Again, understand that although this is still prevalent in the post UBI market, it is simply irrelevant as man no longer provides for production)

    To conclude, Although I agree that the implementation of UBI is of necessity; it must be said that this necessity resides within the conditions of a completely automated market where man cannot re-enter the workforce as he is impeded by superior machines. That is to say that the market today is merely not automated enough for UBI to prove efficient, and would ultimately be a Welfare State 2.0. One should consider imposing a Negative Income Tax [q. M. Friedman] and gradually transition into a UBI model as the competitive market transitions into an fully-automated market. When this will take place is of mere speculation. 
    PlaffelvohfenApplesauceBaconToes
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1449 Pts
    UBI is a pretty good way to hurt the economy and create a generation of people who do not do anything and do not gain any skills. Every experiment ever with a more or less significant UBI amount has led to such a state of affairs.

    A great example in this regard is UAE. There, citizens receive very generous passive income from the government and are asked of nothing in return. As a result, a lot of people there do not do anything with their lives and just race sports cars on highways 24/7. The economy exists somewhat in parallel with that fraction of the society, and is maintained both by the government mining abundant oil reserves, and the minority of people who do decide to do something with their funds attracting foreign investors and building real estate.

    One could say that one of the reasons businesses in UAE thrive is because people gain passive income that allows them to not rely on risky loans and just try things out. That is definitely true, and that, in my view, would be the actually reasonable argument in support of UBI, as opposed to the regular "we must take care of our fellow man". And I am fairly sure that, were Americans to start receiving a sizable passive income, much more people would try enterpreneurship, and more successful enterprises would arise.

    But that assumes that the money the UBI is funded by is conjured out of thin air. This, of course, cannot be the case, and the money must be siphoned from the existing economy, which already is hard at work. Taking money away from people who already are putting it to good use, in the hopes that others will randomly put it to better use, is the general principle behind any redistribution of wealth, and it does not work.

    Add to this the fact that many people, who already do the minimum amount of work they need to survive, will lose incentive to do anything whatsoever - and you get a recipe for disaster.

    I have always said it, and will say it again: instead of advocating for government-issued passive income, teach people how to create their own passive income. There are zillions of ways to do that, starting with something as basic as creating online sources and receiving the income from ads, and all the way up to incredibly sophisticated autonomous real estate or stock market systems that take decades to develop, but then pay for themselves almost immediately.
    Instead of promoting the lazy entertainment-based lifestyle, promote creative and productive lifestyle instead. Incentivize people to work, to study, to learn, to try, to risk, to think. Do not incentivize people to watch Netflix and to eat cheeseburgers.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987BaconToes
  • BaconToesBaconToes 202 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    But that assumes that the money the UBI is funded by is conjured out of thin air. This, of course, cannot be the case, and the money must be siphoned from the existing economy, which already is hard at work.
    False, the money will not come from thin air. If we were to implement UBI by Andrew Yang's proposals, there will be a 10% VAT.
    Quoting him directly:
    It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.
    A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.
    The means to pay for a Universal Basic Income will come from 4 sources:
    1.  Current spending.  We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like.  This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits.
    2.  A VAT.  Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone.  A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue.  A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.
    3.  New revenue.  Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy.  The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs.  This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.
    4.  We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like.  We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional.  Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up.  Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

    This will ensure we will have enough money to fund for the UBI, along with the benefits.

    MayCaesar said:
    Taking money away from people who already are putting it to good use, in the hopes that others will randomly put it to better use, is the general principle behind any redistribution of wealth, and it does not work.

    You claimed that it "does not work", yet multiple test pilots of UBI has shown that it works. Just look at Alaska and their Alaska Permanent Fund. 
    The money they will receive will be spent on the local economy, boosting it and creating new jobs. 

    MayCaesar said:
    Add to this the fact that many people, who already do the minimum amount of work they need to survive, will lose incentive to do anything whatsoever - and you get a recipe for disaster.

    A total of $1000/month is only $12000/year. That is below the poverty rate and will not be enough to sustain anyone.
    A study done by Harvard and MIT showed that direct cash transfers do not impact work behaviors. There are so many studies that show that people started working more and that more people started graduating from high schools. 

    MayCaesar said:
    I have always said it, and will say it again: instead of advocating for government-issued passive income, teach people how to create their own passive income. There are zillions of ways to do that, starting with something as basic as creating online sources and receiving the income from ads, and all the way up to incredibly sophisticated autonomous real estate or stock market systems that take decades to develop, but then pay for themselves almost immediately.

    Wow! You seem to assume that the people that need UBI the most(such as manufacturing jobs, 4 million of which has been taken by automation and AI) will be able to learn how to code and buy stocks! How about this, we give 1000/month, allow them to get a part-time job while studying coding, and then be able to educate themselves and be financially well too.

    And no, multiple studies and test pilots determined that most people do not spend their money on drugs or alcohol, but rather food and clothing for their family. 

    i fart cows
  • BaconToesBaconToes 202 Pts
    edited April 5
    Edit: Duplicate
    i fart cows
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1449 Pts
    BaconToes said:
    False, the money will not come from thin air. If we were to implement UBI by Andrew Yang's proposals, there will be a 10% VAT.Quoting him directly:
    It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.
    A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.
    The means to pay for a Universal Basic Income will come from 4 sources:
    1.  Current spending.  We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like.  This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits.
    2.  A VAT.  Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone.  A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue.  A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.
    3.  New revenue.  Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy.  The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs.  This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.
    4.  We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like.  We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional.  Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up.  Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

    This will ensure we will have enough money to fund for the UBI, along with the benefits.

    The problem is not in our ability to fund UBI. The problem is in the fact that, in order to fund UBI, you have to siphon money away from the sectors of economy that are already hard at work, generating income.

    BaconToes said:

    You claimed that it "does not work", yet multiple test pilots of UBI has shown that it works. Just look at Alaska and their Alaska Permanent Fund. 
    The money they will receive will be spent on the local economy, boosting it and creating new jobs. 
    Alaskan economy is heavily affected by its oil mining. I mentioned UAE specifically to illustrate that even in such cases, while UBI does not necessarily ruin the economy, it does have strong negative effects.
    Last I checked, Alaska did not boost a particularly strong economy, aside from its natural resource sector.

    BaconToes said:

    A total of $1000/month is only $12000/year. That is below the poverty rate and will not be enough to sustain anyone.
    It is more than enough to sustain anyone who is okay with lowering their standards, pretty much, anywhere but in mega-cities.

    I myself am spending approximately $1,000 a month on everything currently, and that includes ~$600 a month I spend on paying off my car loan and auto-insurance. I live in a very cheap area, and nobody is prohibited from moving in to one just as I did.

    BaconToes said:

    Wow! You seem to assume that the people that need UBI the most(such as manufacturing jobs, 4 million of which has been taken by automation and AI) will be able to learn how to code and buy stocks! How about this, we give 1000/month, allow them to get a part-time job while studying coding, and then be able to educate themselves and be financially well too.

    And no, multiple studies and test pilots determined that most people do not spend their money on drugs or alcohol, but rather food and clothing for their family. 
    It really depends on what one is trying to achieve in life. I learned coding and rigorous mathematics while living in a broken apartment in a third world country and having next to nothing in my pocket. 
    Anyone in the US can already get a part-time job while studying coding, and they will be much better off than I was.

    My visits to the grocery stores in the area show otherwise. I see people living off welfare buying chips and beers all the time, with their new sports cars parked on the lot.
    In general, people tend to spend the money they earned through hard work much more carefully, than the money someone else's work has produced. That is one of the main reasons why almost all major lottery winners fail miserably in life.
  • BaconToesBaconToes 202 Pts
    @Marcus_Antonius

    Automation already replaced 4 million manufacturing jobs by 2015 and 1/3 of American jobs will be replaced in the next 12 years. The time to act is now, America is not prepared for this catastrophic replacement of jobs. 

    Such ramifications include the immense debt accumulated by the government in the hopes of granting paychecks to citizens of each nation and the deterrence of individuals to re-enter the job market [q. T. Sowell, W. Williams, F. Hayek] (Again, understand that although this is still prevalent in the post UBI market, it is simply irrelevant as man no longer provides for production)
    Like I mentioned previously, $12,000 is not enough to survive on in many states and is below the poverty line. Alaska has seen no decline in job participation after their UBI and seen an increased in part-time jobs. A study was done by MIT and Harvard(source linked in another reply) found that direct cash transfer has no impact on job rates. 
    Also, as I mentioned previously, Andrew Yang has proposed several ways to pay for it:
    It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.
    A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.
    The means to pay for a Universal Basic Income will come from 4 sources:
    1.  Current spending.  We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like.  This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits.
    2.  A VAT.  Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone.  A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue.  A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.
    3.  New revenue.  Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy.  The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs.  This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.
    4.  We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like.  We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional.  Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up.  Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.
    And the need for UBI is urgent because the United States will see a large increase in jobs being replaced by automation. We need UBI now as we transition to a automated society, not after. What are the truck drivers or the manufacturing worker going to do after their jobs are replaced by automation? They are not going to survive this transition if we keep our policies the way they are currently.
    i fart cows
  • I thought we had it? At about $7.30 an hour? Or is it decided by state?
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • BaconToesBaconToes 202 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    But that assumes that the money the UBI is funded by is conjured out of thin air.
    MayCaesar said:
    The problem is not in our ability to fund UBI. 

    Nice subtle backpedaling.

    MayCaesar said:
    The problem is in the fact that, in order to fund UBI, you have to siphon money away from the sectors of economy that are already hard at work, generating income.

    In order to fund UBI, you create a 10% VAT. You aren't "taking" away any money from the economy. The same way the government allocates money from the budget for welfare, same goes for UBI.

    MayCaesar said:
    Alaskan economy is heavily affected by its oil mining. I mentioned UAE specifically to illustrate that even in such cases, while UBI does not necessarily ruin the economy, it does have strong negative effects.
    Last I checked, Alaska did not boost a particularly strong economy, aside from its natural resource sector.

    Literally, that is the point. Their UBI is called the "Oil Dividend" because it is funded by oil. But, with Andrew Yang's proposal, the "Freedom Dividend", will be funded by VAT. Alaska received many cuts in their UBI, which may have had an impact. Nonetheless, Alaska getting an increase in part-time job workers, "wide range of outcomes including food security and educational attainment, investment in small businesses and long-term earnings. Even short-term infusions of capital have significantly improved long-term living standards, psychological well-being, and life expectancy." in Kenya, and reduced hospitalization in Canada all prove UBI will be beneficial. Just take a look at this list of test pilots and experiments: https://www.yang2020.com/35-ubi-programs-cash-transfer-experiments/

    MayCaesar said:
    It is more than enough to sustain anyone who is okay with lowering their standards, pretty much, anywhere but in mega-cities.

    I myself am spending approximately $1,000 a month on everything currently, and that includes ~$600 a month I spend on paying off my car loan and auto-insurance. I live in a very cheap area, and nobody is prohibited from moving in to one just as I did.

    It really depends on what one is trying to achieve in life. I learned coding and rigorous mathematics while living in a broken apartment in a third world country and having next to nothing in my pocket. 
    Anyone in the US can already get a part-time job while studying coding, and they will be much better off than I was.

    My visits to the grocery stores in the area show otherwise. I see people living off welfare buying chips and beers all the time, with their new sports cars parked on the lot.
    In general, people tend to spend the money they earned through hard work much more carefully, than the money someone else's work has produced. That is one of the main reasons why almost all major lottery winners fail miserably in life.

    All anecdotal evidence, have not seen a shred of empirical data in any of your arguments. 

    pov·er·ty line
    /ˈpävərdē līn/
    noun
    the estimated minimum level of income needed to secure the necessities of life.

    Different areas require a different amount of money. What I am talking about is the FEDERAL poverty line(average) and you might be in an area where you don't need as much money(anecdotal evidence never works when you are trying to prove something that includes everyone). Where you live may be inexpensive, but it is balanced out by the expensive areas. 

    "Anyone in the US can already get a part-time job while studying coding, and they will be much better off than I was."
    You clearly do not understand. People under the poverty line cannot even afford the bare necessities, much less than classes for coding. People under the poverty line will NOT be able to work one part-time job and be able to work. Even if they are able to do so, where is the incentive to do so? People are not going to compromise loss of income for coding lessons. The truck drivers, retail workers, manufacturing workers are not going to sacrifice their job to get some coding lessons, and most of them already live paycheck to paycheck.

    "My visits to the grocery stores in the area show otherwise. I see people living off welfare buying chips and beers all the time, with their new sports cars parked on the lot.
    In general, people tend to spend the money they earned through hard work much more carefully, than the money someone else's work has produced. That is one of the main reasons why almost all major lottery winners fail miserably in life."

    Anecdotal again, but continue on.
    https://slate.com/business/2015/04/how-welfare-recipients-spend-their-money-it-s-not-steak-and-seafood.html
    How about you show me a single shred of data. None, you can only provide anecdotal evidence and fringe cases. 
    Nearly all test pilots of UBI did not show an increase in drug or alcohol purchases, but rather on things like clothing, food, and healthcare. 
    False equivalence, UBI and the lottery are different, and you know it. The lottery is a one time win that gives you a sum of money, while UBI is a small amount of money each month. But of course, you know that already. 
    i fart cows
  • BaconToesBaconToes 202 Pts
    I thought we had it? At about $7.30 an hour? Or is it decided by state?
    https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/

    UBI is different from the minimum wage. UBI will empower the citizens and give them more buying power and bargaining power. UBI will allow employees to choose what working conditions they want. Minimum wage, however, gives this power to the employers.
    i fart cows
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1449 Pts
    @BaconToes

    If I wanted to write a peer-reviewed article, with references and such, I would write a scientific paper, rather than making an online argument on a debate website. Here my arguments are based purely on general logic, and I am not going to participate in reference wars in my spare time.

    BaconToes said:
    MayCaesar said:
    But that assumes that the money the UBI is funded by is conjured out of thin air.
    MayCaesar said:
    The problem is not in our ability to fund UBI. 
    There is no "backpedaling" here. These two quoted sentences are perfectly consistent with each other.

    In order to fund UBI, you create a 10% VAT. You aren't "taking" away any money from the economy. The same way the government allocates money from the budget for welfare, same goes for UBI.
    Yes you do. The money in the governmental budget is already at work, due to how our banking system works. When you take it away and distribute it among the individuals, you reduce the effectiveness of its spending.

    Allocating money from the budget of welfare seems counterproductive, as the currently available funds already struggle at providing the needy individuals with the means to fund their basic necessities. If the same amount of money is spent not on that targeted group, but, rather, on everyone in the country, then the needy will be even worse off than they are already. You are essentially taking the money away from someone who needs it badly, and giving it to someone who needs it less and can easily earn it themselves. You are taking the incentive to work from those who currently have it, while still not giving it to those who are sitting on welfare checks. Unless you make the UBI alone absolutely unlivable - but you are talking about $12,000 a year, which in the US is more than livable. I could live off that, and I am not particularly good at living economically.

    Literally, that is the point. Their UBI is called the "Oil Dividend" because it is funded by oil. But, with Andrew Yang's proposal, the "Freedom Dividend", will be funded by VAT. Alaska received many cuts in their UBI, which may have had an impact. Nonetheless, Alaska getting an increase in part-time job workers, "wide range of outcomes including food security and educational attainment, investment in small businesses and long-term earnings. Even short-term infusions of capital have significantly improved long-term living standards, psychological well-being, and life expectancy." in Kenya, and reduced hospitalization in Canada all prove UBI will be beneficial. Just take a look at this list of test pilots and experiments: https://www.yang2020.com/35-ubi-programs-cash-transfer-experiments/
    There is absolutely no evidence that any of the cited facts are caused by the UBI. There may be a correlation, but the causation is much harder to prove.

    Different areas require a different amount of money. What I am talking about is the FEDERAL poverty line(average) and you might be in an area where you don't need as much money(anecdotal evidence never works when you are trying to prove something that includes everyone). Where you live may be inexpensive, but it is balanced out by the expensive areas. 
    Which is precisely my point: if someone could not live off $12,000 a year in an expensive area, they could always move to a cheap area and live there, while not working. It is not overly hard to move from New York City to some backwards village 200 miles away, and enjoy a luxurious lifestyle there without ever working.

    You clearly do not understand. People under the poverty line cannot even afford the bare necessities, much less than classes for coding. People under the poverty line will NOT be able to work one part-time job and be able to work. Even if they are able to do so, where is the incentive to do so? People are not going to compromise loss of income for coding lessons. The truck drivers, retail workers, manufacturing workers are not going to sacrifice their job to get some coding lessons, and most of them already live paycheck to paycheck.
    You do not need to "afford classes for coding" to learn coding. One can buy the Internet access in most areas for $20 a month these days. You know how I learned coding? By downloading a few books and free language packages, and studying in my kitchen. I definitely did not have money for classes, nor did I need the classes.

    Classes are needed for highly specialised areas. Nobody needs classes to learn to do some basic coding jobs and earn solid money by freelancing. And any trucker or retail worker could do that, given the desire.
    The problem is, most truckers do not read books on programming when they get home. They turn on Netflix instead.
    Well, I did not have time for Netflix when I was studying programming. I still do not have it. I have too many things to learn and do to afford to watch some TV series. And do not tell me that not everyone can live this way; everyone can, there is nothing special about it.

    False equivalence, UBI and the lottery are different, and you know it. The lottery is a one time win that gives you a sum of money, while UBI is a small amount of money each month. But of course, you know that already. 
    In what mode the individual receives his/her money for free has no bearing on the point I made. It is still the money he/she has not earned through hard work.

    Have you ever been to UAE? Have you talked to the typical residents there? I highly welcome you to take a trip in the future. You will learn a lot of things. See a lot of things. Wonder why all those people living in a country full of opportunities lay under a palm all day, instead of doing something.
  • I would put it in the category of a necessary evil, it will be a burden but the way things are going? we don't have a choice
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @BaconToes ;
    I'm not sure that is the right question to ask. Is a basic income a United State? Does every one get a basic income? At this time taxation is a basic income in the United States of America. Every one gets one, some have multiple taxes to hold in united state.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch