Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
Wasn't the original concept of UBI floated as an alternative to services? It wasn't just "here's $1000" a month, it was "here's $1000 a month but you need to pay for health insurance now".
It really seems to have transformed into just a handout with no balancing on the other side. Not that I'm generally opposed to it, I'm just wondering if it's actually transformed or just no one talks about that other half anymore.
|
A UBI by definition is simply money given to everyone with no clawbacks.
When it's floated as net neutral move, it's replacing more targeted funding. Generally, this move hurts the people who have greater need of government services. It's a step back in terms of the social safety net because you're wasting money on rich people.
Other times, it's suggested as an expansion of government that requires increasing revenue, though with recognition that some programs become redundant and can then be eliminated (e.g. OAS). For me, this is what I'm advocating for - just because I think the government should guarantee people have enough for housing and food doesn't mean I think it should come at the expense of healthcare.