Freedom: Benefits of a Basic Income Guarantee vs. Welfare – Learn Liberty

Freedom: Benefits of a Basic Income Guarantee vs. Welfare – Learn Liberty

The US federal government spends well
over six hundred billion dollars a year on welfare spread across more than a
hundred and twenty different programs. When you add in spending at the state
and local level total welfare spending in the United
States amounts to over a trillion dollars a year. That’s over $20,000 for
each and every poor person in the United States. Sounds great right? But
unfortunately, not only has this massive spending not solved the problem of poverty it’s sometimes made it worse. Here’s a radical idea… Why not scrap the current system, eliminate the hundred and twenty federal programs in their bureaucracies and simply give the money
we spent on them straight to the people were trying to help? There’s a policy
that’s been getting a lot of attention lately they would do exactly that. A basic income guarantee or minimum
basic income would guarantee each citizen and income sufficient to meet
their basic needs. The money would be given regardless of whether recipients
are working or not and even regardless of whether they’re willing to work or not. Now that’s a crazy sounding idea. But whats interesting is that it’s managed to draw support from across the political spectrum not just from political
liberals on the left, but from some conservatives and libertarians on the right. A basic income guarantee would be less
paternalistic, less bureaucratic, and more fair than our current welfare state. Here
are three reasons why… First, a basic income is simple. It’s simple to administer since everyone gets the same amount you don’t need a complicated
bureaucracy let alone over a hundred and twenty of them, and it’s simple for
recipients too. Right now it’s difficult for welfare recipients even to figure out
which benefits they’re eligible for. And receiving those benefits requires
filling out a lot of different forms and traveling to a number of different
offices. With a basic income all people would need to do is cash a check. Second, a basic income gives people more freedom. Under our current system when the
government gives you housing vouchers. or food stamps you have to use those
benefits on what the government thinks you need. But what if what you really need
is something completely different. Or what if you want to forego present
consumption and save your benefits for the future
can’t save food stamps in the bank. But you can save cash and you can spend it on whatever you think you need. A basic income gives people the freedom to make
their own decisions about how to improve their own lives. Third, a basic income treats everyone the same. Our current system gives benefits to some people but not to
others. That means we spend a lot of resources snooping around the details of people’s
private lives to see if they really qualify or not. And that also means that
there’s a big incentive for special interest groups to gain the system to
their own advantage or to oppress or disenfranchised groups they don’t like. A simple rule that treats everyone equally, isn’t just more fair, it’s more stable. The supporters of a basic income disagree about a lot of things including how much money
the program ought to give, and whether it ought to be an addition to our current welfare
system or a replacement for it. But what they all agree on is that a simple basic
income scheme would be a dramatic improvement over our current welfare
state. Maybe not the best system you can possibly imagine but a realistic and
politically viable alternative. So what do you think? Leave your thoughts in the comments

100 thoughts on “Freedom: Benefits of a Basic Income Guarantee vs. Welfare – Learn Liberty

  1. The ghosts of John Calvin and John Henry stand in the way. Free money? A free lunch? But technological acceleration reminds us that Calvin, the serial killer and sexual predator, baying "work ethic!" has been dust a long time. That work ethic was propaganda to make you an obedient wage-slave – Tech also reveals that poor John Henry, dying in competition with a steam drill, was a fool.

    Buckminster Fuller said in the 1960s that there is enough real wealth to give everyone on earth a high standard of living, while machines do the heavy lifting and rapid calculations. Jacque Fresco says we can all live better than Bill Gates. Let's get going on it before scarcity-based greed capitalism takes us all down.

  2. It works in the sense that you get rid of all the bureaucracy that goes along with it, but you still end up with a shitload of people who are just a drag on things and contribute nothing.  I'd support this only if people with zero income get ZERO votes.  If all you want are the responsibilities of a child then you get the authority and political power of a child.  Otherwise all that will happen is we'll have it good for 10-20 years until all the leaches vote up how much basic income they deserve and then we'll be right back to where we are now.  The only solution that works for the long run is to get rid of ALL welfare.  Not everyone is supposed to make, just watch a nature show or two if you don't understand.

  3. There's this idea floating around that, perhaps by giving people money that no one would have an incentive to work.

    People build their own context of what is poor and what is rich, what is comfortable and what is uncomfortable. Children have no idea what it's like to live like a caveman, possess no record of human history in their genes, and over time will tend to envy those with more 'stuff' than they do. Through their own ambition and curiosity, under the idea that somehow they can change the world to suit themselves, they're not going to settle being at the bottom regardless of how 'comfortable' they are unless they experience a far lower standard of living.

    Give people limitations, they will want to defy those limits and push them. Give people equality, they will figure ways to gain what they deem 'superiority'. If superiority is impossible, then they will differentiate themselves. People don't want limits, they don't want equality. They want to have an edge, an enemy they can define to build their own sense of self-righteousness. They will figure a way to feel like winners in their own terms, to find some way to break the stalemate. People want something to give them some illusion of identity, even if it means putting others down.

    People will work, regardless of the comforts provided to them. A B.I.G. will ensure that there are more people given the opportunity to crush one another. It will serve as the fuel for the burning desire of humans to exercise cruelty on their fellow man.

    When men are free to decide how they spend their money, eventually they're going to want more. Not for the sake of being comfortable, equality, justice, but for the sake of power, revenge against the enemy they've defined for themselves. Capitalism and Communism are just parts of a greater whole, that when put together will create an everlasting flame that will never fade, if not grow ever brighter!

  4. While I understand there are positives to the guaranteed income proposal, I find the "means" just as important as the "ends."It is no more ethical to take someone's money to pay another in this way, versus the current methods. It's simply more efficient and provides the recipient with greater freedom; over a portion of many others' incomes.

  5. My thoughts are if you really do away with welfare 100% all together, people would naturally want to still help those in need. So you would have a free market of charities competing for the 300 billion dollars Americans already give to charity. People do this all on there own. And if they didn't have the tax burden, they will give more and the charity will be miles more affective at reducing poverty.

  6. Alternative solution: end the welfare state, end every and all federal programs that don't have EXPLICIT authorization in the constitution, and end all the taxes which fund these things. With everyone in the economy able to hang onto their money, there will be FAR less need for government assistance. There will be more jobs, and those jobs will be able to pay more. For those who still can't work, there will be private charities who will care for them.

    THIS is what freedom looks like. While a basic income might give more freedom to those who get it, it's the opposite of freedom to all those who must pay for it. They must work for the poor, against their own will, to fund them. That's called slavery. So, by definition, a basic income does not create more freedom.

    This will benefit everyone!! Please help and be the first to sign this petition! Thanks! Just started this petition apparently you only get a month to get 100,000 signatures. So Please pass this on and share it with as many people as possible. You also have to verify your signature with an email so make sure to do that. It would not stimulate pop growth the plan we have right now does because we only allow families to get help and therefore people have even more babies because of that and also Wars cause pop growth the most only a temperary dent in the pop then a boom happens right after a war this was actually in a basic ecology class that I took with statistics. So wars dont help with pop decline it actually help with incline lol modernizing helps society. It's better to get everyone sustainable and get them modernized and that will help decline the population growth and get it to a more natural level that is sustainable.

  8. Ever been to an Indian Reservation? That's the effect Basic Income will have. It'll reduce the incentive to work for those with the lowest skills and will cause inflation of what are currently low price goods, making people worse off than before. A better system is eliminating all minimum wage and most welfare and replace it with a strong earned income tax credit.

  9. It definitely sounds better than what we have now, but I think getting rid of the welfare system altogether is the best solution. Unfortunately, it can't happen all at once since many people are dependent on the current system.

  10. Any hand out, service, or money given by the Government IS Welfare !!
    I work to maintain my family and my infrastructure, I will NEVER accept anything from the Government, I am not a beggar, I am not a Bum, I am not a freeloader

  11. Moot point–the job of the people in government is to grow their departments, not make them more efficient or obsolete.

    In our current welfare state this would be way better, but it's never going to happen.

  12. In germany there was the "Pirate Party" (Piraten Partei) who tried the same….and they failed.
    With all respects, but you made exactly the same errors. (I'm german, so maybe not all points are aplicable on the us)

    first: about how much mony are we talking about? sounds basic but it's important.

    second: Who get's the money? Al US-citizens? Everybody who lives in the US? Whats about US-citizens in a foreign country?
    What's about children? Whats about people who are living in a less expensive region? It's just too easy to trick the system when you don't answer these questions.

    Maybe i sound like a right wing republican at the moment, and I'm a student, but i don't think people will go to work anymore. (again you did not explain about how much mony we are talking)

  13. This would be one of the greatest achievements of civilized society. The people would no longer be concerned with self sustenance. Employee abuse would faze out more. I think it would be great.

  14. Instead of renaming a subsidy, why not get rid of taxes. How about that!!!! No taxes means no need for basic income blah blah what ever it is. DOWN with taxes.

  15. For once I disagree with Learn Liberty, while I agree getting rid of pointless bureaucracy is a good thing I don't think a guaranteed income is going to solve the problem. If we just give people the money then the benefactors would have no incentive to go out and make a living. They will literally do nothing and get money for it.  I think ( and feel free to debate me on this) the best way is to make getting a job easier not buy lowering standards but by getting rid of minimum wage. This allows for more competition between companies and more economic freedom. As we have learned before with other Learn liberty videos was the driving factor that has reduced global poverty.

  16. Basic income??? Are you serious? I was told that this channel had libertarian views? They are talking like socialists. This is just replacing one form of welfare for another. No, the solution is to END THE WELFARE.

  17. Is this similar to the negative income tax? This does have some advantages. Minimum wage should be obsolete. Because this would be the minimum wage and those who are trying to get interns, training or find it beneficial to work for less money to get ahead, could. Great for secondary education. Gets rid of the welfare trap. Even if you work for 1 dollar you would be, say .85 cents, better.
    My main issue, is that in order for it to work you would need to do some drastic changes. With drastic changes , it has high potential for drastic unexpected results. In order to mitigate that you may have to implement this by a city first, then state, then country. But a lot of programs are federal. ????? I want to like it. But practically, How?

  18. Here are the problems I see with this proposal, assuming that it is designed to address the same problem as the current welfare system albeit via a simpler method:

    The government has to define what the "guaranteed basic income" level is to begin with. You and I may not agree about what is strictly necessary to survive because we may disagree on the issue of bare necessities vs luxury goods. Relatively poor people in modern developed countries have a far superior quality of life to most people in the world throughout history, which raises questions about how much we should expect them to forego. There are also some people who might have very different basic needs from others – e.g. because they are disabled and need money for treatment, equipment etc – and a guaranteed basic income of X would not account for this.

    We say we would cut through the red tape by paying people X and then leaving it to them to spend the money as they saw fit. But since we don't all agree about bare necessities vs luxuries, people on the right would begin to question the unemployed's spending habits and conclude that the basic income level was set too high. Conversely, people on the left would claim that the basic income was too low because not enough unemployed people had access to products and services that they deemed to be essential, such as healthcare.

    I suppose that resentment from the right would be partially offset by the fact that they too would receive this guaranteed basic income in addition to their salary – but the counter-argument to that would be this doesn't wash, as without benefits they would simply keep the money they earned and those who did not deserve it would not.

    The main counter I would make to what I said above is that much of this is a problem with the current system anyway. For example, people in social housing have much better accommodation and security in that accommodation than working people who have to rent privately and/or share a house; the state decides that you are entitled to a one-bed flat on your own because you are a single person and allocates you such a flat accordingly. You are exempted from the tough compromises that working people who rent privately have to make all the time.

  19. I think you guys should leave the source of the information (ideas, graphs, charts, quotes, etc) in the description of the video. Sometimes I spend a lot of time researching for this data so I can decide about its liability, It would be great help if you put the links to the sources in the description. Thanks!

  20. If everyone received the same amount of nominal money, wouldn't the people from the more expensive cities receive less real money and the people from the more cheap cities receive more real money ?

  21. Are there any proposals to fund the BIG through creating new money rather than taxation?

    It eliminates the problem many libertarians have with taxation. There are obviously risks, but it could be coupled with reforming the monetary system generally to eliminate or reduce present mechanisms of money creation.

    If there are similar proposals, do you have links? Otherwise: thoughts?

  22. does anyone really think the govt will actually ever voluntarily give up those 120 welfare programs for something simpler, cheaper, and more efficient??? if you say yes, you obviously do not understand the nature of govt.

  23. he didn't address the issue of WHERE WOULD THE BASIC INCOME MONEY COME FROM???? oh yeah, more coercive taxation or face jail time if you refuse…. PURE THEFT

  24. Heinlein proposed something much like this in "For Us the Living", but this proposal ignores something important: prices move. Increasing income will have the effect of raising prices, most likely on necessities like food and shelter, since that's what most people spend their money on, due to increased demand. Now, an argument can be made that our current system already does that in a mish-mash of various sectors, and that this proposal would cost less because of bureaucratic shrinkage. But, one cannot consider this a panacea for poverty. If we increase the minimum income to ensure that everyone eats and sleeps comfortably, which is not a morally bad goal, the increase in prices will mitigate at least some of the benefits, necessitating further increases.

  25. This video really changed my thought process on things. Even today. I have been a big proponent of programs like drug testing welfare recipients and limiting things that can and cannot buy. My logic was, if you are borrowing money, the issue can impose limits in an effort to protect their investment. In this case. I the tax payer am investing in your future to become welfare free. In my opinion, you do not have a right to spend other people's money anyway You like. It is not yours, it was taken from someone it belonged to, and given to you to help you. wasting that would be immoral. However, as we have seen, gov. is not effective at much of anything. So oversight would just end up costing more than the potential loss or savings.
    In this theory. We Immediately save by giving the same amount but doing away with the costly overhead.
    My immediate thought was the waste. People will most certainly overspend and not save. Theis program would only work as long as we do not attempt to then help those people again. All it would take is maybe the first year and they spend themselves to a poor state, then maybe next year they save a bit more. Or even better. They blow the money and then have to get a job to make more. This also could only really work if we abolished the min wage, to allow for low-skilled workers who may likely blow all their money to get jobs at the value they are worth.

  26. Please tell me where the money comes from for the B.I.G.? Was that money involuntarily extracted or voluntarily exchanged for and earned? This is "small gov't" garbage. Take a stand Learn Liberty! Taxes are armed robbery

  27. I'm a libertarian, not a Rawlsian or Dworkian. So, no. The danger in a social minimum is that it'll inevitably lead to more demands to welfare. Give an inch, they take a mile. Supposedly, welfare programmes always intend to maximise social mobility. But they always end up leading to more welfare on top of welfare. People are never satisfied.

  28. I think my only problem with the B.I.G is that idea that it would be given to someone whether or not they're working. The way I see it, if you had the option to make a certain amount working or make the exact same amount not working, I think most people would choose the latter. Other than that, I really hope we move towards the idea of B.I.G.

  29. The current welfare system food stamps, housing, ssi, ssdi, tanf all have different rules and some contradict each other. Some of these agencies make up rules that aren't even in the laws to cheat the recipients out of their benefits. A person spends hours and hours applying for benefits and hours and hours fighting them to keep those benefits. A basic income would create productivity because a person would be free to work or start a business instead of fighting the current system. Disabled and elderly could work less hours if they had to and keep their income. Parents could take off time from work when they need to and have a savings to fall back on.

  30. Uh,why should a massive central govt. exist in such size and why should it decide to take what you earn and give it to other people?

  31. +Learn Liberty, is basic income only meant for the poor people? From your figure of $20k a year, it seems so, because $1T will only service 50M people. Can you clarify? I thought basic income was for all adults, regardless of income.

  32. So, it's just a different redistribution scheme. If everyone is guaranteed this benefit (say $20k for example) that money has to be taken from somewhere. Would you tax this amount for everyone? Would someone with just the minimum income pay a percentage of it back in taxes? If not, is it morally consistent to give everyone a minimum income and take many multiple times that out of what they get for working? It seems like a mighty big disencentive to working. Would this not drive cost-push inflation if it's taken from "business taxes" which are already paid by the customers? There are 318 million people in the US. You stated that the current system costs around $1T. That only works out to ~$3100/person. This would be a rather shoddy min income. If it were something more in line with $20k that would $6.3T. Currently roughly 48% of people pay no federal income tax (round to half for back of napkin calculations) that leaves half of the population to pay a combined $40k in taxes a year.

  33. I am still not ok with paying large amounts of income/sales/death/property taxes from my hard-earned wage only to have some deadbeats who are not willing to work. I have no problem with helping the elderly or young children, but even a paraplegic can work if they wanted to in today's world. Whenever someone tells me "I can't find a job", all I say is "What? No one needs their lawn cut anymore?" We live in a soft victimized society, and the only way to get out of it is to stop pandering to tiny aches and pains. North Korea right now has active nuclear warheads that could destroy the Atlantic seaboard, and we are focusing on whether homosexuals can marry? Suck it up America! There are more people in the world than you.

  34. We should repeal Obamacare, limit Medicaid to life saving surgery/medicine only, Privatize Medicare and social security, make food stamps provide only vegetables and water, abolish the FHA and the damn student loan administration (which caused the college bubble), and limit welfare to those who have at least TRIED to fill out at least 3 or so job application forms. Screw you welfare state, the government should only be a last last LAST ditch resort to help people, and it should be uncomfortable too.

  35. This is great. I like this idea. Scrap all the other crap. not sure how much it should be. Just divide the amount we spend on everyone now by how many people are on welfare. Or something like that maybe? I'm thinking at least 500 a month maybe 1000 a month? Idk. How much ever we add stuff up to.

  36. To befair, not EVERYONE is going to do this. People who grow up in working families who have been taught a work ethic will most likely not do it … but there will always be some who will regardless of upbringing. Maybe they get depression and just don't feel like working, then they pump out a bunch of kids who grow up in a home in which no one works, and the only thing they're taught is that the world owes them a living. Why would any of them ever work? Then they grow up and do the same thing and they have kids and all their kids do the same thing, and the number of people goes up exponentially every generation.
    So what? Let those who don't want to work stay home. Maybe some will plant trees, flowers or whatever, help elderly people next door, or take care of their elderly parents. Maybe others will write shitty songs, novels or paint shitty paintings… and after a few years or a decade, make something really worthwhile and amazing.

    The thing is, soon there won't even be so much need for a lot of jobs, because there will be more automation, robotization and autonomous cars and everything. There will either be care jobs that robots are not as good at (hospitals, kindergartens, elderly homes) or top jobs like programmers and CEOs.

  37. "The money would be given regardless whether recipients are working or not and regardless of whether they want to work or not."

    Ayy lmao dat passive aggression doe yo!

    Seriously this is a fucking great idea I wish Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders would publicize it. So pure, so beautiful. The thing I hate about this channel is that I hate Libertarianism in some ways and want to hate you guys, but every video just makes so much damn pure and simple common sense. So fuck you dickheads!

  38. I am a Liberal and this makes sense to me. Maybe we should scrap welfare and just give money to people. I would set the amount at 20,000 a year to all adults 21 and over excluding millionaires and billionaires. Adults only. we then provide a single payer healthcare system, and universal education.

  39. Jesus Christ, what utter morony. So called libertarians not even understanding what Pandora''s box ""guaranteed income" would open. Yes, welfare is so bad. Here''s the solution WELFARE FOR EVERYONE. Don''t think this is what it means? Then you must not understand a damn thing about how incentives work. Because when you are guaranteed an income, there will ALWAYS be less of an incentive to work. This just goes to show you how ""efficiency libertarians" and "compromise libertarians" are liberty's worst enemies.
    I mean, guaranteed income so bureaucracy can be decreased? Don''t you so-called libertarians know that bureaucracy, and bureaucrats (state jobs) is a specific GOAL of government and a feature of the system? Why do you think the state is always getting bigger? Because they want less bureaucracy and less government employees? Do you think the unions would ever accept a decrease of government jobs and job security? What would happen is this: guaranteed income PLUS government employees PLUS bureaucracy. Congratulations, you have now increased the size of the state ten fold and put the welfare state into overdrive.

  40. A BIG would actually be a wealth transfer from poor to rich, since everybody would get the BIG, even the ultra-rich. Most government programs provide funding for low income families. The amount of assistance they receive is far more than what a BIG would distribute. Odds are, the low income families would need to use the BIG for basic sustenance, while the wealthier families can simply invest their BIG. This actually only further distorts the wealth gap.

  41. I don't understand how Libertarians go around saying the nastiest things about Liberals and the Left, and then come up with this incredibly liberal mechanism (basic income/negative tax/what ever) and acknowledge market distortions existing in a Laissez-Faire leaning environment. If someone on the Right in the elected political sphere stood up and said "I believe in social liberty and we should implement a basic income," well I would shit my pants and say "That person is to the Left of Bernie Sanders!" If you are familiar with John Rawls, this would be called "overlapping consensus." Of course, there are enough fundamentalists spewing dogmatic comments here to make me less than optimistic.

  42. I think this would be great.  We should be focused more on Needs than on Wants since everyone is not rich.  I just came across an article that said there's 6 vacant homes for every homeless person, yet they're still homeless.  6 per person, they need one and only one yet they're not getting it.  If we addressed basic needs better, then these homes wouldn't just be rotting away ruining neighborhoods' home values, they could go to ppl who need the shelter.  And when the lowest group of ppl in society get a raise, everybody moves up.

  43. Universal Basic Income IS welfare, and redistribution of wealth. God I'm so sick of people's entitlement issues.

    Since when have we gone from a maker society to a taker society. Work is the only path out of poverty.

  44. I highly doubt UBI will replace current welfare programs because there will always be exceptions made when enough people complain.

  45. I think this is a great idea to replace our current welfare systems! However I would say no one should receive the benefit until they turn 18, and immigrants cannot be eligible. Only American citizens of legal age.

  46. If a system can be implimented that is more affective, and can potentially replaces 120 institutions, giving the issue that much more liberty, I'm on board.

  47. Those benefits don't go to every single poor person. They only go to certain people who qualify. 16 million children go hungry every year in the united states. If they gave out vouchers to homeless people then there wouldn't be any homeless people. We have outstanding numbers of people who don't have access to any help and there are several homeless working people as well who don't qualify for assistance. My family was homeless for a month at one time, no one should have to go through that so let's bring on the Basic Income and while we're at it, should we decide to participate or volunteer our time for us parents (the price of the daycares should not be burdening us down either).

  48. if you subsidize handout recipients then there's going to be more handout recipients and you'll find yourself in a bigger problem than you had with welfare.
    Improvement to our current system is like saying hey robbing people to give to the poor will be an improvement to robbing people and keeping the money to ourselves. It doesn't change the fact that you're robbing people.
    For a supposed libertarian intellectual this has to be your least intelligent moment in your thought life.

  49. I have been trying to post a comment on what I believe the US needs to do to make things better and it hasn't worked. Is there a max number of charioteers for a post?

  50. And after the government gives out the basic income, its impulse to engineer society or "help" out the extra really disadvantaged will vanish?

  51. I see quite a few libertarians in here objecting on the grounds that Basic Income isn't a total abolishment of taxation and a total privatization of all things which governments do now. In short, because it isn't a full-scale implementation of Libertopia.

    The problem of course is that Libertopia is no more real than Marxitopia. Even if Libertopia can exist in the real world (hint: it can't) it won't be implemented by one single policy change, even a big one like BI.

    The question isn't "would implementing a BI single-handedly lead to my idea of a perfect society?" The question is "would implementing a BI lead to a society better than the one we are living in now?"

  52. That is such a great idea. Finland is running an experience with this Basic Income, other countries too. Alaska has such a system were the state pays you every year a certain amount of money. It would so much simplify everything.

  53. Assinine idea. Mom and dad waste their free income on drugs and their kids go without. Then guess what… More welfare on top of welfare.

  54. The problem with this plan is one of basic math. The government currently spends 1 trillion dollars / year on welfare programs, this equates to ~ $ 3,000 per person in the US. To get up to something like $ 15,000 per person you would have to spend over 5 trillion per year. More than the entire federal budget currently. That level of spending simply isn't sustainable.

  55. My problem with this system is, IF all are being given enough to live on and do with as they please, what is the incentive to WORK? and, if people then do not work as a consequence of this system, we have to begin to address a whole other set of social issues which arise from unemployment, ie: crime. As per the earlier video addressing economic growth, isnt economic growth a more effective way to solve US poverty problems?

  56. What if they spend it all on drugs? Then they'll still be starving, and now they have an addiction which is classified as a mental illness.

  57. Basic income is a great idea in a perfect world. If the person getting the basic income has an addiction, where it be alcohol, gambling, cocaine, heroin, shopping, sex, etc., you've "enabled" their addiction, but left them no better off than they initially were. In addition, that money has been taken from someone who might have put it to good use, got an education, created a new invention, drilled a water well in Africa. (Basic income is a feel good solution, much as the great society was in the 60's, good intention, bad results.)

  58. I can't believe how many libertarians are falling for this UBI scam. This will NOT save money. It will pay everybody and not just a percentage of the population. Plus, its benefits will basically be wiped out by taxes and inflation.

    On top of that, liberals always want to increase welfare and taxes. The never ending goal will just be to raise UBI (along long with the taxes to pay for it) more and more until we are all waiting for our check from the government.

  59. I vote for free universal healthcare and a $10k/year basic income and get rid of all the welfare programs and lower a lot of the bureaucratic costs of other programs

  60. I think the idea here is justifiable to minimal-libertarians. They can label universal basic income as their definition of "minimal government". So, if you're an anarcho-libertarian, don't forget that libertarians include minimal-libertarians! For economics calculations, if you aren't an economist, you cannot be sure what your hypothetical unintended consequences will be likely to occur. Economists study the history of economics too. They will know what unintended consequences will be highly possible based on their study of repeated history of economics, not just pure conjectures like some comments down below!

  61. yes, perfect, brilliant … … … except … you'll never get leftists and even some conservatives, to close down all of those 120 odd programs … starting with the public workers' unions representing all of those useless people that the govt employs.

  62. I think a better idea would be a guaranteed minimum job. Perhaps part time extra jobs like helping the elderly or disabled for a relatively high wage 25-40/ hour to supplement those with poor incomes, while at the same time accomplishing something of value. Maybe hire people just to make art for art's sake and/or to beautify grim neighborhoods in order to increase hope. Take a look around the country and you'll find some pretty gnarly places and think how you would feel if you lived there.

  63. Democratically speaking, if the people are garunteed 2 have income, then quantity Demand & sales would be much more stable if not higher.

  64. An important point that is missed in this video is that robots continue to take away jobs. We're just creating a bubble by trying to prop up jobs artificially via tax cuts and it won't be good when that bubble bursts. To put this another way, our current economic model is unsustainable as it does not factor in a robotic labor force.

  65. An alternative may work. Although there would have to be restrictions on what people can spend it on and who can get it.

  66. Humm… you mention the question… should it be in addition to our current welfare state or in lieu of. BIG difference !!! I think there is a case for this if some BI was in lieu of all the other welfare/transfer payments. It's not clear. The devil is in the details… Also, and perhaps the biggest issue, is can we put this in lieu of our other transfer payments and expect our wonderful government NOT to slowly reinstate our present welfare/transfer payment system ? I'm highly doubtful. So, without something bulletproof here (like maybe a constitutional amendment), I'd be against it.

  67. We could offer government bonds to people. When they get paid the money is withdrawn and paid back with interest upon maturity. This would help us get out of "debt"….only $10 a week @ 20,000,000 workers is $200,000,000 a week. That's two hundred million a week. At 52 weeks a year….well my calculator just went into e…at only $10 per person.

  68. Hey, how about we take all skilled labor unions and let them form cooperative corporations (employee owned), this would lower the price of services at a consumer level and increase the incomes of the average working American while exercising total freedom and liberty, as an "owner/ employee" having an equal share in profit/vote on major decisions at the workplace? I call it "bottom up economics"! Thoughts anyone???🤔

  69. What happened to “Learn Liberty”. They’re mixing up a basic income that every(!) citizen would receive with a welfare system that surely needs a reform, but supports only those in need. How is it NOT obvious that a basic income payed to every citizen would raise price levels and increase inflation?

  70. I think that government workers don't want to give up their jobs too, so they will not roll over and do so but instead will want UBI + Welfare. That is the political reality.

  71. I don’t get when you stop getting it? Someone’s paying it and someone’s receiving it and how much money does that happen

  72. Get rid of the 16A AND THE FED! Go back to consumption and tariff system. People will work if there isn't a safety net. Have the faith based people and ngos handle food and clothing donated from the citizens. It worked before 1913! People are always trying to reinvent the wheel.

  73. We need to eliminate all welfare completely, welfare just creates a new "poor" class. The new basic income is ZERO!

  74. The lesser of two evils but evil nonetheless. UBI is still welfare and disincentives productivity. It be would be greatly abused by opportunist citizens and more give more fodder to xenophobics. It’d also continue devaluing the dollar

  75. One problem that I see is that the political party, that loves to give welfare will no longer be able to be in power, because they won't have the votes from the welfare recipients. Therefore they would not be in favor of this option.

  76. This will get rid of social security benefits. It is a replacement. All other social benefits will be gone. No WIC, NO EBT, NO MEDICAID. Hope all have a lot of money for retirement and medical bills. GOD help us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *