UBI

Historically the state has stepped in to save capitalism from itself. Individual porksters may not like it but it's better than a mass revolt. It may not be as unlikely as you think.

I like the idea of it.

It's not welfare. Welfare only goes to people who qualify while basic income goes to all citizens equally. So that makes it so working is no longer needed to live and is only needed to fulfil further needs or at least that is the case so long as prices are not driven up or if the income changes with inflation and deflation.

how exactly? It's welfare that you can buy meth with.
How is giving people the "freedom" to be influenced by advertising, addiction and consumerism instead of giving them democratically or positively selected benefits funded by the government?
Is it just fear of bureaucracy?
Giving people money is a lolberg policy.

Services like Public Healthcare and Education among others affect all citizens equally as well.
the incentive argument just as easily applies to widely available an not poor-people-only welfare.
UBI is just an excuse to blame those who poorly manage their money for their own problems and leave it at that.
A proper Social Democratic welfare state is better in every way aside from corruption.

better than* giving them democratically or positively selected benefits funded by the government?

Nobody is arguing for a swap. We need welfare state PLUS ubi.

UBI is an incentive to Capitalist behavior and futurely Capitalist policy, services like electricity and water treatment which should actively be overseen by the community are operated for profit instead and paid by UBI, when something is part of the public interest it shouldn't be maintained by private means.
I'm not advocating some central government swallowing everything, I'm advocating community management and that's something UBI works against.

8ch.net/leftypol/res/761632.html

Capitalism already operates on artificial scarcity.
The most simple consumer goods would simply have their prices jacked up to make up for it and leave more resources to the ruling class.
UBI would tackle poverty, but that's about it.

Basic income is a a transitional demand. If we get it it's a massive achievement and if we don't it's grounds for revolution.

Social-democrat delusion.

A problem with UBI, at least in America, is that it will most certainly precede the cancellation of welfare programs. Realistically, how much money a year do you think citizens will make with the UBI? $12,000? $13,000? At that point, with the cancellation of welfare programs, the majority of poor people will just be using that UBI money to supplement the costs of healthcare, while the upper middle class and wealthy people will use that UBI money to help pay for vacations, investments, etc.

It incentivizes people to fight for more, and brings class struggle out into the open.

pic related

It is an unfortunate necessity in modern capitalism because of the ratio of jobs:people able to work. Once we establish socialism/communism, those who will ba able to work will work.

On the other hand if we go fully automated, which is a possibility in the future, nobody will have to work if they don't want to. We will live to improve and enrich ourselves.

Universal Basic income is more efficient. Instead of the government telling people what they need the people decide for themselves. Healthcare is used more on the sickly and very little if not at all on the healthy. Education is good but higher education only goes to those who seek it. I don't think it should replace healthcare or education though.

Lolberg thinking, again.

i don't get how people can be this stupid

No. Different people have different needs on physical and psychological levels. You're basically using a logic that could apply to say you should never give money to the poor because they might buy alcohol or drugs with it and instead toss them a bag of peanuts but they are allergic to peanuts.