Because it places the burden on those that are actually participating in the work force. What incentive do I have to work when the end result is similar if I don't?
The end result is not anywhere close to similar. UBI will never provide more than the basics. Food & rent and that's about it. If you want more than that, you'll have to work.
That's the point, I have a full time("good") job currently, and can barely afford food and rent for my family, I am literally selling plasma 2x a week for gas money, while paying a significant amount of taxes, so why would I work?
Now imagine getting by with a lot less. That's what UBI-only would be like.
I assume your main problem is that you're in a high cost of life area. A national UBI would almost certainly be set at a level appropriate for a median area. If you want to not work and maintain your standard of living you'd likely have to move to a low COL area.
with what money? we already do a lot of that with de facto negative tax rates for the lowest earners.
You bring up a great option though, I have been working to move to a lower COL(see rural) area already. Part of this plan is a draw down on my participation in the labor market, basically a necessity unless I want to commute multiple hours each way. We have gotten by on much less than I do currently, my QOL was very similar, but I was doing more work for myself and my family, rather than my employer or society.
Which is why I picked your comment to reply to. People have this inclination that UBI is going to provide a reasonable amount of money. But if you do the math you'll find that about $1500 a month is about the limit that's feasible. You want to increase the tax rate by an amount that has the average adult paying the same amount in extra taxes as they receive via the UBI. $1500 a month gets to European level taxation rates which I figure is about the limit of acceptable.
A couple can live on $3000 a month in some areas of the country, and perhaps a single person can live on $1500 a month in West Virginia.
But even at current levels of taxation I am looking for the exit because it is unsustainable. I am already deciding that the tax burden and COL is too high to justify my participation, and I am working on severely cutting my income and moving away from the city in order to be more self sustaining, and sharing less of my labor with everyone else.
*So my original question still stands, what incentive do I have to participate?
"If a small amount of my taxes goes to somebodies rent or healthcare, instead of paving roads for the Amazon trucks to drive on, or the FAA for the Amazon airplanes, them I might as well just be homeless myself!" What a strange argument.
As it currently stands ~40% of the profits from my labor is taken by my federal and state government and they are both running at a deficit. That's before accounting for state sales, property, and utilities taxes. It doesn't seem like a small amount currently, and the government's books are not even balanced at current entitlement levels. I have a really tough time coming to the conclusion that the governments would get better with more liabilities, especially when the largest UBI study showed less workforce participation, not more.
You are also conflating my position with that of one who thinks the current corporate protections are a good thing.
Satisfaction and drive to work. This actually happens all the time with ubi tests - people work more, not less. Turns out we're wired to try doing useful stuff on average.
And you benefit either way - lifting whole community and reducing homelessness and risky behaviour is good for everyone around, not just that one person. The burden of social issues has always been and will always be on the working people. Ubi doesn't change that part.
