• Bonehead@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As long as you’re honest about wanting to give rich people money simply so that you’re strict definition of “universal” is maintained, I’ll be willing to explain what the “universal” in UBI actually means is “universally available” as opposed to “universally applied”.

          • Bonehead@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just call it something else. It’s not UBI.

            That’s what it seems that you’re arguing. But as I said, “universal” can mean whatever we want. Let’s just give poor people money so they can survive a little better and not worry about what the exact connotations the name might imply.

            • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              UBI describes the policy I strongly support. The policy you support, I am on the fence about, and lean slightly against, for various reasons. It sounds like you, inversely, are pro means tested basic income, and anti universal basic income. Let’s allow people to make up their minds about these policies based on the facts and not anything resembling a semantic bait and switch.

              • Bonehead@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                However 88 billion (the cost estimate in the OP article) divided by the population of canada is 2200

                By your own admission, your version of UBI wouldn’t be viable. You accuse me of a semantic bait and switch while misrepresenting the program the government is trying to implement.