Try the political quiz
+

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

Electoral District (2013):

54 Replies

 @9MF8SPN from Connecticut  answered…11mos11MO

Universal income should depend on the degree of need of the citizen. For as long as the citizen in mind is also working a viable job or receiving an education, then they should be guaranteed income to help them with high costs necessities.

 @9LX7GZWLiberalfrom Quebec  answered…11mos11MO

No, but corporations should be required to pay their employees livable wages, respective to the cost of living in the employee's area

 @96L5V4TLiberalfrom Ontario  answered…2yrs2Y

I think yes, everyone should get help with housing and food but still encourage work by maybe watching how much they come into work, and if they don't they will not get any more help with housing or food. So it would be either work and get some help with the things or if you don't work you won't get help at all.

 @95QSS2JLiberalfrom British Columbia  answered…3yrs3Y

I think that UBI should be imputed for households who earn under a certain amount per year as well as those on the street.

 @8TT28NFLiberalfrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but only when there is a global pandemic where lockdowns are necessary to flatten the curve, which results to people losing their income because of Job losses. But the government also has the responsibility of incentivizing people on going back to work once the lockdowns are lifted. We should also Mandate Covid-19 Vaccines so we don't have to enforce another lockdowns.

 @8T3KK2VLiberalfrom Manitoba  answered…4yrs4Y

No, I believe that a direct cash hand out is very exploitable, and would not directly solve the poverty issue. However, I believe the government should supply a basic standard of living for those who want it but I think it should be provided through housing, food stamps, free education etc

 @98FPFSYLiberalfrom British Columbia  answered…2yrs2Y

It's debatable. I see the potential in it, but I can't see it being a viable program for a government to make considering that social security already costs a lot to maintain. So no, I'm not particularily in favour of it.

 @57QKT6Tanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, we are rapidly coming to a point in time where automation will make it difficult for everyone to find a job, especially those with disabilities or other factors preventing them from "moving up" in the world; all citizens should have their basic needs met with the option of working to gain more money for extras.

 @6K8N8XC from Illinois  answered…5yrs5Y

Use it to replace the current welfare system, which incentivizes people to stay poor rather than build themselves up.

 @78Q5L5B from California  answered…4yrs4Y

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

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.

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

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

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

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

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

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

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

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

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

No, needs testing is more effective by using progressive taxation to increase funding and expansion of existing federal welfare, housing, and food stamp programs

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

No, increase funding for already established social welfare programs and raise the cap on income eligibility requirements

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

No, increase funding and raise the income eligibility requirements for already established social welfare programs instead

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

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

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

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

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

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

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

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

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

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

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

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

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

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

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

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

 @8FC78TK from North Carolina  answered…5yrs5Y

 @8Q6744C from Michigan  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8VMBRZV from California  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8VWHPN6 from Michigan  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8QDSNZY from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

 @8XZCH8R from New York  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes but they have to prove they aren’t wasting the money on things like drugs and such

 @8YLB2GR from Indiana  answered…3yrs3Y

 @jennamarieanswered…4yrs4Y

Yes, for all minors, elders (65+), pregnant women, new mothers, people with physical or mental issues, and involuntary unemployed willing to train and accept job offers and as a replacement for the current welfare system, but A pilot project should be commissioned and its result studied before implementing a universal basic income program

 @8XT5R4B from New York  answered…3yrs3Y

While i can agree to a certain extent that the UBI would cause some to dropout of the workforce, it benefits those that can't work and have no source of income.

 @8TQHNB4 from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities if they are unable to work due to disability

 @8VC2Q88 from Virginia  answered…3yrs3Y

 @8C6X86C from Kansas  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, but only for unemployed but require employment after an amount of time unless disabled or an elderly. Needs more requirements before approval.

 @8SFDLS6 from Iowa  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but at the current point in time with the deficit and debt, it should not be implemented currently. Maybe someday in the future.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...