vanguard96
Jr. Member
Posts: 754
|
|
« on: June 14, 2017, 04:15:21 PM » |
|
[quote} In conjunction with a massive reduction in the welfare state, support. Otherwise, no. [/quote]
Agree, pretty much all of the free market advocates of UBI or some other policy like it (Friedman, Charles Murray, and F.A. Hayek) have said it would only work if 'all' other systems of welfare were eliminated. The rest is left to public charity - and it would be not for every single person but applied as a negative income tax. It would be hard to manage and if the amount was too high it would be a major disincentive to work.
I think most progressives, social Democrats, and other modern 'liberals', who typically are fearful of automation and are altruists through the power and kindness of the state want a more robust version of UBI than what Friedman envisioned or what Murray discusses now when not getting heckled for the Bell Curve book.
If there was no Medicaid/Medicare/ACA, no SocSec, no food stamps, no housing assistance, no welfare, but they still had to have something maybe this is OK. But, given how strongly the power players are stuck to these benefit structures with the pull peddlers happy with the status quo insurance companies and large corporations, lobbyists, lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians, etc. and how hard its been to make inroads in dismantling the power and involvement of the state in our lives I think the UBI would be a bad idea.
|