Universal Basic Income vs. Negative Income Tax?

[vanguard96]

I think half of the automation people probably would have said the same thing in the 19th century.

It's a fear of the unknown coupled with lack of vision of the potential for new types of jobs that will be around when automation will be further occurring.

For the original question though I would not give it to everyone - and I would eliminate all other means tested benefits and eventually phase out of all entitlements as the system here in the US is running aground. A negative income tax was proposed as a least worst alternative in this case by Milton Friedman, Charles Murray (yes, the Bell Curve guy), and F.A. Hayek at one time or another even though none were very eager about it and gave a lot of qualifications.

The big issue is the disincentive of leaving welfare and other public assistance, the so-called 'benefits cliff'. Right now the benefits go away quickly so people are discouraged from taking raises, promotions and such because doing so will immediately remove benefits and subsidies worth far more than the raise. But if they don't take the promotion they will stay in the same place and dependent.

Many other libertarians do not care for the disincentives of the UBI and wonder about how it would work in today's world of special interests and in the US with the poor record of rolling out programs they predict it to be a disaster.

Other critics particularly on the GOP side wonder about fraud - and I suspect would have a lot of strings to how the money is spent so as not to waste it. While the altruistic types wonder about how to care for people that are irresponsible with the UBI money or still fail.

I say if there was a system like this it would be only one shot and then you have to ask for charity. Some can't accept that. I say, look at cases on social media or the news of people and companies donating to those who are having hard times as a sign of non-governmental aid that does occur and can warm their hearts.