Try the political quiz

9,475 Replies

@9JWKTJWGreen from Ohio answered…1mo

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.

@9JWBWLHWomen’s Equality from Florida answered…1mo

Yes, as long as you're showing evidence of contributing to society.

@9JW55GJIndependentfrom Maine  answered…1mo

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.

@9JVNNB7Republican from Texas answered…1mo

@9JVHZKYIndependent from Florida answered…1mo

@9JVDVQSRepublican from South Carolina answered…1mo

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.

@9JV39KJTranshumanist from Pennsylvania answered…1mo

@9JTSBS9Independent from Virginia answered…1mo

Yes, based on each locality's average cost of living (even more localized than by state).

@BobBeastaRepublicanfrom Maine  answered…1mo

No, I prefer a Negative Income Tax under the condition that other social programmes are abolished

@9JTBPYNConstitution from Kansas answered…1mo

I believe if someone who has a job is still struggling they should be helped, but someone who isn not trying to help themselves out should not be helped.

@9JTBGY8Democrat from Minnesota answered…1mo

I’m not educated enough in the subject. I feel like if people are paid a living wage, ubi wouldn’t be as relevant.

@9JSRJVKDemocrat from Texas answered…1mo

No. Those resources should be used to set up co-ops with fair wages and to fund social programs.

@9JSR2X8Veteran from Texas answered…1mo

Yes, as long as you are working (unless you are on maternity leave)

@9JSMWLKWomen’s Equality from Pennsylvania answered…1mo

@9JSC7YZAmerican Solidarity from Illinois answered…1mo

Yes, help the people get on their feet and provide them a job not just give them everything

@9JS6N2VDemocrat from Texas answered…1mo

Yes, but should make it that if want to receive income to complete 10-20 hrs of some community service.

@9JS49PLSocialist from Georgia answered…1mo

Yes, but only for a limited amount of time so they can have the ability to find other means of sustainability

@9JRXZKPWomen’s Equality from California answered…1mo

@9JRNPLDTranshumanist from New York answered…1mo

Yes, but there should be certain permeators for who is qualified to enter

@9JRNLX9Democrat from Illinois answered…1mo

It depends on its regulation and should be tested before it’s properly enforced

@9JRMYC9Constitution from Mississippi answered…1mo

Yes, however there should be a point where the government needs to make people start to fend for themselves.

@9JRDDH8Constitution from Georgia answered…1mo

@9JRBXMHRepublican from Georgia answered…1mo

No, because raising the minimum wage will harm those that worked hard and raise the cost of everything nationwide.

@9JQXVSVSocialist from Arizona answered…1mo

@9JQWS65Democrat from Alabama answered…1mo

there are pros and cons to this pros it could help people that are struggle and help them become financially stable cons it would raise taxes and some people would take advantage and sit hope with no job

@9JQWD56Republican from Alabama answered…1mo

No, its not fair to people who work to get taxed and their money go to people who can work but are not.

@9JQN7SQRepublican from Texas answered…1mo

Yes, but have it set to where it can only be used for paying rent, mortgages, or school.

@9JQMPCPRepublican from Utah answered…1mo

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.

@9JQK963Constitution from Pennsylvania answered…1mo

@garigriffoConstitutionfrom Kansas  answered…1mo

Yes, but only if it replaces all existing social programs to keep it financially balanced

@9JN28YLDemocrat from North Carolina answered…1mo

Yes, but to receive you should have to show some proof of income

@9JJV7V8Women’s Equality from Ohio answered…1mo

it's 50/50 because some people might need that extra help but still be working at the same time, but some people live straight off the government.

@9JJSKMKDemocrat from North Carolina answered…1mo

Yes, but it would have to be a way where people are still motivated/incentivized to find their own income

@9JJ9BRZGreen from California answered…1mo

@9JJ4MP9American Solidarity from Minnesota answered…1mo

No, but people should be allowed food and water. Even some sort of shelter

@9JJ23BHRepublican from New York answered…1mo

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.

@9JHGLPWWomen’s Equality from Pennsylvania answered…1mo

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.

@9JHF3BYDemocrat from California answered…1mo

yes, only to those who work hard but don't make enough for food/housing

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...