Do you think it's a coincidence that that check is only guaranteed in the absence of ambition? You've seen the perverse incentives of means-tested welfare, not the effects of a UBI.
There's an optimal amount of basic income for social prosperity and it would be an amazing coincidence if that amount happened to be exactly enough to provide for people's basic needs and nothing more.
I agree that basic income won't kill ambition. But I don't think it's because we're withholding money from people. It's because people are naturally ambitious and competitive. Just because you have wealth doesn't mean you don't want more.
Maybe some people won't be ambitious, but that's not exactly a problem for those of us who are.
> Contrast to welfare where if you earn anything the welfare is taken away.
Yeah. I agree with you on this part.
In Germany part of the basic rights granted by law is human dignity. Part of human dignity is participation in culture and society. As such the closest thing germany has to UBI includes a budget to permit participation in culture.
We should overhaul our existing programs to provide graduated phase outs instead of creating new entitlement programs.
I see UBI in general as having far more perverse incentives than welfare does right now (and they are bad).
Government is the source of all wealth. So administering cashectomies is a fine way to mitigate hoarding.
Once our Ginni coefficient is dragged back into the "democracy promoting" realm, we can talk about liberal over reach.
Labor is the source of all wealth, not government.
> Once our Ginni coefficient is dragged back into the "democracy promoting" realm, we can talk about liberal over reach
What exactly is the democracy promoting range? How does it promote democracy exactly? The richest Americans are nearly split between democrats/republicans, so this isn't a 1 party issue.
I don't think UBI is over reach, I think it's bad policy.
