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 individual and family receives a monthly sum that is funded by dividends from the state’s oil revenues. Proponents of UBI argue that it will reduce or eliminate poverty by providing everyone with a basic income to cover housing and food. Opponents argue that a UBI would be detrimental to economies by encouraging people to either work less or drop out of the workforce entirely.
I believe only people that are unable to provide for basic necessities because they either have some economic or underlying medical/mental issue should receive a universal basic income but only if they are also a participating member in society and don't use the money they recieve in the intended ways.
Yes, help should be given but only to those who are in great need for it, and only for the length of time where they have no other resources. Investing in personal growth programs would be more lucrative in the long term.
Universal Basic Income demonstrably reduces productivity and causes stagnation. However, UBI could be built as a system of incentives to improve society by tying augments or improvements to your UBI allotment based on achieving social milestones such as education, marriage, public service, childbearing, military, disability, and having a paying job.
It depends on where you live and the cost of living. So yes in the very depleted home areas, no in the wealthy areas. But even then, the people in the depleted areas, say the black neighborhoods, a great percentage of their population is fatherless. It shows a factor of laziness, which would confound the statistics necessary to implement this funding. I do think people should have this, but I also think people need to work harder.
Yes but it should only be enough to cover basic needs and if you are considered able to work and are not working you should lose the money. This should be used to supplement not fully cover. There should be monitoring.
Yes, I think people should be provided with some sort of income to an extent. Give them enough money to be able to afford a house, but leave them with enough room to encourage them to go seek a job to afford food, education, etc.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.