Yes, as much as the left enjoys giving complex over descriptive names to it’s ridiculous policy ideas, UBI (Universal Basic Income) in layman’s terms means “free money!” Although the idea of giving people a “basic income” has been in circulation since the 18th century, democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang has been the first person in a while to bring it up. Now, on both sides of the political spectrum we have an ongoing debate that has essentially evolved around the question : “Should America provide it’s people with a universal basic income?”
Of course every debate has two sides, except generally one always tops the other with significant reasoning that makes the opposite sides argument pointless and nonsensical. In the case of wether or not taxpayers should fund American residents with unearned wealth, I can assuredly explain to you why most of the arguments made when thoroughly discussing this topic generally contrived from a more collectivist point of view are illogical.
Without further or due, let the debunking start!
“A Universal Basic Income Would Better The Lives Of Many Residents Of Society.”
First off, let’s quit assuming the moral goodness and innocence of all members of a population, nobody is perfect. The idea that providing $12,000 a year to every person without an income would benefit the life of that person in a positive way is undoubtedly an ideal fallacy.
Right now, 38% of the homeless population are completely alcohol dependent, and almost 30% admit to some form of substance abuse. Of course we can acknowledge these plights until eternity, but for lack of better words “people make bad choices.” Judging by previous statistics, we can’t just assume the current “no income” population would be positively impacted by government sponsored money. Instead, we must acknowledge the fact that already one third of the homeless population is “mentally ill.”
Continuing off that last statement, what happens when you provide the existing drug addict population with more money? Well, when one third are mentally ill, regardless of the money being given to them, I still wouldn’t assume they would be up to making well considered life decisions.
Like anything, providing the not so affluent with funds to hopefully stabilize their financial needs may look quite decent in the emergence if implemented, but in the long run what exactly would we have created?
Wealthy Countries Should Provide It’s People With A Basic Income?
This has got to be the oldest financial knowledge in the book, “just because you have the money to buy it, doesn’t mean you need it!” In this case, people claim that since America is such a “well off” nation, more should be done for it’s less fortunate citizens. Yes, and no.
Starting on the “no” side of things. Just because the CEO of Amazon Jeff Bezos is extremely wealthy, doesn’t mean everybody employed at his company should be payed equally in wealth. This is called socialism, and the same thing is applied to citizens of a country or nation. Just because America is a highly prosperous country, doesn’t mean in any way that it’s citizens should be relying on it’s government for resources to live.
By relying on the government for financial assistance, you are directly giving them more controlling abilities, leaving American citizens with less rights in exchange for a small income. Not to mention the fact that doing this would also degrade the “will to work” even more than it already has been.
“The Onlookers Publication is one of few conservative news sites on the internet. Our goal is to preserve American traditional values as long as possible, and to provide Americans with the ammunition needed to win the fight for freedom.”
Copyright 2019 @onlookerspub