I think it is good (depending on implementation). If it is not taxed, poor people have money to spend so the GDP will rise.
I could either have the future pass me or l could create it.
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 30%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
Though I admit my ignorance when it comes to economics, I feel like resources should be distributed equally between all who participate in society.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
The more important question is: what do you think will happen? You clearly have something in mind.
No one said that we should give UBI to someone immediately after they are born.  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 55%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
You are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of basic income. Watch the video in the OP and get back to me.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
I watched the video again, and I didn't hear him say you get an income immediately after birth. Even if the video did say that, I fail to understand why the specific system in the video should be the only one considered.
Besides this failure to recognize a specific statement in a video, what have I said that demonstrates that I'm "oviously unfamiliar"?
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
The problem with UBI is that it is a very poor investment of the capital. It is literally throwing money away, hoping that the receivers, in turn, will invest the money wisely. Will they? The vast majority of people are very poor financial managers and are more likely to spend the money on static or temporary goods, than invest it in their future - hence, the opportunities for the economical growth are wasted.
Another problem with UBI is that it removes one of the most important incentives on the free market: the need to survive. If, no matter whether you do any amount of work or not, you will get by off solely the donations from the government, then you are much less likely to work, and if you do work, you do not put in as much effort in the work, because you know that being fired will not economically endanger you. You always have a safety cushion, no matter what you do on the market, and having such a cushion lower people's drive to work on their career.
Rather than introducing country-wide UBI, the government should urge people to invest in their personal BI. People who, instead of wasting their money on the immediate pleasures, invest them in stocks or currencies, naturally generate a passive income that serves the same purpose as UBI - with the difference being that their personal investments are the income generators, not other people's taxes. If everybody in the US had investments passively generating $2,000 a month (not an unreasonable number by any metric), then the problem of poverty would be eradicated - without any additional governmental expenses.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
My idea of a UBI would be enough money to cover food and shelter (and healthcare if it isn't single payer). If their was a way to make sure the money was only spent on those things then I would support it (I know this is probably not likely).
Here is the free market argument I've heard elsewhere on UBI. If you have your basic necessities paid for, and you know that they are secure, then you are free to pursue any type of work that interests you. That person who is too scared to risk their savings to open a resteruant, or work on a new invention, suddenly has the confidence to pursue that, introducing more competition into the market. It allows riskier businesses to start up possibly illuminating sectors of the market that haven't had their demands met. As a ridiculous example, let's say a store entirely dedicated to origami, and it turns out people didn't realise it but they love origami. The market can still crush ridiculous businesses like that because the capital to open and run them should absolutely 100% not be allowed to come from the UBI.
Maybe all I'm describing is a welfare state, except the individual gets to decide what food or shelter they put the money towards? I would love feedback on my post as this is an idea that I'm extremely flexible on and get very little chances to discuss it.
Edit: to add, I have no idea what would constitute appropriate housing or food.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
I have heard this argument, and it certainly has a merit - however, I do not think it is practically very relevant. I will explain my opinion by grouping people into those who would benefit from UBI, and those who would not - and exploring how people in those groups affect the economy in the absence of UBI.
Group A: people who earn enough money to not need UBI.
Group B: people who do not earn enough money to not need UBI.
You mentioned that UBI promotes risky investments. In my experience, people willing to perform risky investments tend to have a very innovating and outside-the-box thinking mind; such people are going to be very well adapted to the realities of the free market and will be able to join group A on their own. I have met quite a few businessmen that started with saving money for opening a company, and when they did open the company, their profit returned the investment many times. People committed to something are going to be able to do this something regardless of any difficulties they can encounter.
My point is that people who are able to commit to risky investments and succeed in the presence of UBI, are able to do the same in the absence of UBI. The presence of UBI hence, in general, will only drain their investment capital due to increasing taxes necessary to provide every citizen with UBI.
What about people who do need UBI to get by in life? There are reasons as to why they are struggling in the absence of UBI. Such people, in my experience, tend to have a much poor financial culture, they are more prone to wasting their money on the immediate pleasures as opposed to investing it in profitable endeavors. They also do not really have outstanding skills useful in high-productiveness fields (otherwise they would have utilized those skills in order to gain a high income), hence providing them with UBI will not make them invest their new capital smartly. It is very rare for a talented and hard-working individual to be on the poor side of the spectrum; when this is the case, there definitely have to be some personal factors preventing the individual from realizing their potential.
This is in general why I do not like heavy welfare spending, including UBI: people who are able to generate resources are already able to secure a decent income, while those who are not will not suddenly learn how to do it by getting UBI. What establishing UBI does is it transfers a certain amount of wealth from those who generate wealth towards those who do not, or who do it with a lower effectiveness. UBI can be illustrated as Bill Gates giving a million dollars to my neighbor: my neighbor will not create a new technological startup on that money, she will instead buy an expensive house and a car - and move back to poverty. Give her a million every month - and she will buy more and more luxury items. I see this a lot in my city, where a lot of people receive welfare and spend it all to pay off a modern car loan, leaving them wearing old torn clothes and mainly buying chips at a grocery store.
Unfortunately, there are very few Bill Gates in the world and very many people with a very narrow set of life skills. To avoid the situation where the minority maintains the majority, the majority has to have incentives to seek employment - and I see no better incentive than the natural "Find a way to contribute to the society, or relinquish the benefits the society provides".
---
However, it does not mean that the government cannot invest the taxpayers' money in a way that contributes to the economical growth. I support the old Chinese approach: "Give the man a fish - you will feed him for a day. Give the man a fishing rod - you will feed him for a lifetime". Instead of giving people money directly, the government should invest the money in a way that improves those people's ability to produce resources. The government should not be charitable with people, it should invest in people instead.
The education investment is probably the most effective way to do so. If the government provides additional incentives for people to receive higher education by, for example, partially subsidizing student loans (this may have been one of the very few of Sanders' policies I found practical), and simultaneously investing more in the universities themselves, then this already will make an average citizen much more likely to eventually possess the set of skills that allows them to reach a high quality of life by their own effort.
I also like to advocate for the government creating a public-funded platform that acts as a mediator between the workers and the employers. If the potential worker has certain skills they want to put to use, but they have trouble finding an interested employer - then the government could do the search for them, connect the worker to the employer and maybe, again, subsidize part of the employee's wage, to make the arrangement more profitable for both the employer (who now can get away with spending less money maintaining the worker) and the worker (who gains more income than otherwise).
Finally, as much controversial as this idea is, I think the government should act as a corporation on the private market. The government could create jobs for people with little-to-no skills, maybe providing short cheap training programs along with them. If someone wants to become a farmer, but does not know where to start, then the government could build a farm village, train public farmers, grant them jobs at the farm - and then sell the farm to the interested private company at a low price. This does have certain socialist aspects to it, but it does not force anyone to do anything, it simply provides people with new voluntary opportunities, so I do not see anything wrong with it.
In the end, in my opinion, we should focus on making people more employable and more willing to be employed, as opposed to satisfying their short-term needs. Investment, as opposed to consumption, is the main driver of the economy, as I see it.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra