Quote:
Originally Posted by Ark2
- Yang's proposal was that every American would get $1,000 a month. This would be an enormous expense (especially if other government programs were not canceled subsequently) but let's assume that it would be fiscally possible to do at that level. How long would it be before that amount is increased? How easy would it be for a politician to claim that $12,000 a year is not enough? In a Democratic presidential primary, I think it would be quite easy to envision competing progressive candidates constantly pledging to up the UBI payout. Even more concerning is that there are virtually no politicians that are concerned with skyrocketing debt, and the average citizen is equally undisturbed by it. Why wouldn't people simply vote for the politician promising to directly give them the most money?
|
This is quite the slippery slope fallacy you've created here.
Quote:
|
- Another poster mentioned that if the benefit of UBI were to stagnate and diminish, it could be revisited. How exactly? How do you go from giving everyone a guaranteed sum of money, year after year, to taking it away from them. Think of any entitlement that we currently have and envision it being taken away. Disaster. Once UBI is rolled out, people will become dependent on it. Their spending habits will increase, but they will not be self-sufficient. The only way that you could revisit it would be to increase it, which I am sure would happen anyway.
|
This, to me, is the real problem with it. Once it's in there, it's staying. Almost impossible to take it away in the future. People would have to be okay with that.