A Universal Basic Income program is social security program where all citizens of a country receive a regular, unconditional sum of money from the government. The funding for Universal Basic Income comes from taxation and government owned entities including income from endowments, real estate and natural resources. Several countries, including Finland, India and Brazil, have experimented with a UBI system but have not implemented a permanent program. The longest running UBI system in the world is the Alaska Permanent Fund in the U.S. state of Alaska. In the Alaska Permanent Fund each indivi…
Read moreNarrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Province/Territory:
Electoral District (2011):
Electoral District (2013):
@9DQSF442yrs2Y
Yes, if a living wage cannot be decided let's provide welfare plus a universal wage.
@967RN3H2yrs2Y
No, increase spending for social services instead
@8V2BRK44yrs4Y
I support a guaranteed livable income, but not a universal basic income
@8TKFPRH4yrs4Y
No, the government should instead focus on the decommodifcation of housing and guaranteeing housing for all, robustly increasing social services, free access to education, healthcare, and transportation.
@8TJ6TWM4yrs4Y
UBI is problematic, but I support a job guarantee
@8R7LVHV4yrs4Y
Yes, but as the person's income goes up, the money from the government gradually decreases.
@8L928N44yrs4Y
Yes, but only if there is strong housing, food, medical, (including dental, drug and vision) controls in place to prevent landlords and corporations from abusing the new income.
@98TNNBDConservative2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as they are working or are looking for jobs
@7PTCG384yrs4Y
No, needs testing can be more effectively assured by using progressive taxation to increase funding and expand the coverage of existing federal welfare and housing programs as well as the federal food stamps program
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, increase funding for already established social welfare programs and raise the cap on income eligibility requirements
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, increase funding and raise the income eligibility requirements for already established social welfare programs instead
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would cause massive restructuring of budget funding for already established social welfare programs that provide economic assistance. Increase funding and lower the income eligibility requirements for these programs instead
@8P6PWZP4yrs4Y
Yes, but we should focus more on basic rights such as housing, food, and a livable wage than universal basic income.
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would cause massive budget restructuring of funding for existing social welfare programs. Increase funding for these instead and raise the maximum income eligibility cap
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would cause massive budget restructuring of funding for existing social welfare programs. Increase funding for those instead and raise the maximum income cap so more people can be eligible
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would cause massive budget restructuring of funding for existing social welfare programs. Increase funding for these instead and raise the maximum income cap so more people can be eligible for them
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would cause massive budget restructuring of funding for existing social welfare programs. Increase funding for these programs instead, and raise the maximum income cap to widen eligibility
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would cause massive budget restructuring of existing social welfare programs. Increase funding for these programs instead, and raise the maximum income cap to widen eligibility
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, basic income sufficiency will vary greatly based on the number of individuals in a household and the cost of living in different areas of the country. Increase funding for existing social welfare programs instead, and raise the maximum income cap to qualify for these programs
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would cause massive budget restructuring of funding for existing social welfare programs. Increase funding for these instead and raise the income eligibility cap to qualify for them
@6Q2LC7Q3yrs3Y
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would create the need for drastic restructuring of funding for existing social programs, and the program would be difficult to administer as the cost-of-living varies greatly in different regions of the country. Expand existing social programs instead by raising the income cap so more people qualify for their benefits.
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would create the need for drastic restructuring of funding for existing social programs, and the plan would be difficult to administer as the cost-of-living varies greatly in different regions of the country. Expand existing social programs instead by raising their income cap so more people qualify for their benefits
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would create the need for drastic restructuring of funding for existing social programs, and the plan would be difficult to administer as the cost-of-living varies greatly in different regions of the country. Expand existing social programs instead by raising their income cap so more people can qualify for their benefits
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, cost of living varies greatly in different parts of the country, so expand the funding for existing social welfare programs instead and raise the maximum income cap so more people can qualify for participation
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, this would create the need for drastic restructuring of funding for existing social programs, and such a plan would be too difficult to administer as the cost-of-living varies greatly in different regions of the country. Expand existing social programs instead by raising their income cap so more people can qualify for their benefits
@7PTCG383yrs3Y
No, needs testing is more effective by using progressive taxation to increase funding and expansion of existing federal welfare, housing, and food stamp programs
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
