Do you support a universal basic income program?
A Universal Basic Income program is social security program where all citizens of a country receive a regular, unconditional sum of money from the government. The funding for Universal Basic Income comes from taxation and government owned entities including income from endowments, real estate and natural resources. Several countries, including Finland, India and Brazil, have experimented with a UBI system but have not implemented a permanent program. The longest running UBI system in the world is the Alaska Permanent Fund in the U.S. state of Alaska. In the Alaska Permanent Fund each indivi…
Read more@9JMNKFR1mo1MO
Yes, though this should be instead a Universal Basic Goods, where food, water, electricity, housing, and other such human rights are free and guaranteed.
@9GCGPFW5mos5MO
No, jobs should be more sustainable, cost of living should be reduced or wages should increase at an equal rate
@9G23JBF5mos5MO
Yes, however the establishing of a Universal Basic Services program addresses inequality better, and should be instituted first.
@9DNJPSJ7mos7MO
who pays it and who decides how much ? what happens when no body wants to do the jobs that are low paid because they can get paid more not to work
@9DDBFK57mos7MO
It would depend on level of privatisation of utilities and healthcare, as well as how this would change welfare system
@9DC728J7mos7MO
Use the UBIP to support the people who need it (homeless, physical and mental disabilities etc.)
No, because it entrenches capitalism.
@99ZLC5R12mos12MO
No, not until AI is more advanced.
@99Z9CQG12mos12MO
Yes, but this should not be in lieu of public services
@99Z86WW12mos12MO
Yes for people at certain disadvantages
@99VKBSY1yr1Y
No, support Negative Income Tax instead.
@99SGT3K1yr1Y
Possibly, but it depends on the nitty-gritty because I've seen versions of this idea floated that wouldn't benefit the low-income earners who'd need it the most. It also needs a lot of other legislation to go along with it to make it feasible (e.g. rent caps so landlords couldn't say, "Oh, your UBI payment is $900 a fortnight? Guess what your rent's gonna be going forward"), and I'm not really convinced UBI would be needed if that plus a higher minimum wage existed.
@99HQGYJ1yr1Y
No, but we should implement a flat negative tax rate, by which persons earning (lets say, $30,000, the poverty line in Australia) would have income supplemented to reach this figure, and persons earning over $30,000 would be taxed at regular progressive brackets.
@98YDX2R1yr1Y
Everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities including food and housing, but increase the amount to a higher value.
Yes, but only in as far as providing the basic human needs of shelter, safety, food and water.
@98PXPCQ1yr1Y
Bring food price goes up and charge applying to new Zealand market Inc
@98M4RFH1yr1Y
Yes but then abolish welfare
@98F3SPY1yr1Y
No, but incentivise work by replacing unemployment benefits with pocerty
@982VQ9M1yr1Y
Yes, but lower welfare benefits to make up of the expense.
Yes, however there needs to be a clear guideline for people meeting a requirement of working or volunteering contributing to the community
@933P6XW2yrs2Y
No, it will only be used to justify the removal of other social supports
@93372QK2yrs2Y
This would be a perfect way to fund people in the 55 to 70 age bracket when they are in the type of employment that is unsustainable into the Oss ages.
@932SBTX2yrs2Y
Yes, but the government needs to be doing more to benefit the economy overall so these basic necessities are affordable for all
@932MZ4Z2yrs2Y
No, but as a modern society we have an obligation to assist our less fortunate citizens via food stamps or food kitchens, basic shelter, free medical & the opportunity to be a useful member of that society
@932K8X62yrs2Y
Only if there is a need for the individual
@926PXWL2yrs2Y
Food vouchers + more shelters, but not luxury and money to blow on drugs
@925DXGTConservatives2yrs2Y
Yes, it is preferable to welfare.
Yes, but only enough to have a filling and nutritious diet and a small amount of spending money.
@923BSSVCentre Alliance2yrs2Y
Yes, on principle. I believe it should be universal for low/middle income earners, not high.
Yes, but it should be income tested, and only for those under a certain amount.
@8ZY7S54Independent2yrs2Y
No this will result is worse outcomes for those at lower income levels
@8ZV5SQ3Family First2yrs2Y
Yes, everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities including food and housing but it could encourage people not to work and that can harm economic growth
Yes, but of a nature that would supplement other income sources (be they welfare or personal income) and would not replace them entirely, whilst a universal income should also not be a part of government bodies' assessment processes / criteria in setting welfare spending, welfare payment amounts, the minimum rate, or the rate of inflation. It should not be assessable income for tax purposes. By following these practices a universal basic income will not only improve standards of living but become a driver of economic production and innovation.
Yes, but citizens on this programme should be earning enough to live a sort of comfortable life
@8Z87MQS2yrs2Y
Yes, but only for people in a certain income bracket.
Yes but only for those on low incomes
Yes, everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities including food and shelter, but not as a replacement to not work
@8Z34FX9Independent2yrs2Y
No, not at this point in time but this will be inevitable in future due to technological advances in all jobs
@8YRDTC4Independent2yrs2Y
I'm an economist, this is like looking into a crystal ball (there is not nearly enough research on this topic, evidence/'data or enough context for this question to be relevant)
For retirees only, proportionate to their assets.
@8YBC4B5Independent2yrs2Y
I only think this would be needed if a technological revolution occurs that reduces job possibilities by >40%
yes, but to cover the very basics so people still work
No, this will just end up as a way to vote in more socialist representatives. You will always vote for the person who promises you more money. This would wreck the free market and chase away investment.
@8XJ9F6XIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes, but only for low income people and not higher income people
Yes, but couples or households earning over $200,000, and individuals earning over $120,000, should be bared from the scheme
@8V7BSMGIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as it is proven that people have a job before receiving the benefits.
No, because it does not actually address systemic inequality and there are better solutions.
Yes, as long as the people receiving the basic income aren't able to work due to medical or mental reasons and/or reasons involving not being able to find work
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...