Well if UBI is indeed a safety net, than it’s really just extended wellfare at that point. Seeing how wellfare is already a quite controversial topic. I do not see this going through political-wise. Unless there is an absolute massive wave of unemployment by the effects of automisation. Which could unify both ends of the political spectrum on this topic.
I am on your side. But I just don’t see this realistically happening (right now).
People already arguing for UBI specifically mention how taxes are already paying for them, through welfare systems.
Their argument is that it’s actually cheaper to pay people a lump sum than to go through traditional welfare services.
True, which is why this framework is doomed for failure:
“…participation in education, training or the labour market” is not required to receive UBI, and that funding for other social services are not cut.”
Other services must be cut to finance this. Pretending otherwise provides ammo to the nay-sayers.
We are currently spending the same amount of money (possibly more due to fraudulent claims) on things like AISH, EI, special credits, etc. THAT money will turn into a UBI and streamline everything through less hoops and agencies, saving taxpayers even more money.
It’s cheaper to do it this way but people slap a “welfare” tag on it and hand wave it away because I’d that stigma, much like you just did.
There have been a handful of studies done around the world already if you’re actually interested in it. Almost all of them are positive outcomes.
That’s my point though. Justly or unjustly so, it is a controversial topic. So you need to convince conservatives otherwise. And boy oh boy, I think that task is even above UBI’s paygrade 🙃.
I’m just expanding the conversation a little bit, I’m not necessarily trying to contradict or disapprove anything you said.
