TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What's your opinion on Unconditional Basic Income? (This is not Communism)

The Basic Income movement is one that is quickly gaining ground around the world. Both prominent right and left wing persons have given their support for this idea.

What's your thoughts on Basic Income, do you think it's a good idea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
http://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/

EDIT: I forgot to mention (in case you haven't heard) that what sprout the movement was Switzerland's proposal for basic income ($2800 monthly). http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/04/us-swiss-pay-idUSBRE9930O620131004


EDIT 2: This is NOT meant as a universal cure for all the problems of the world, things like education, politics, corruption and deceases are separate issues (even though Basic Income might help with them) if you wish to solve those issues please join or start a conversation about those. However discussing them with respect of BI is very fine and encouraged.

Please try to NOT sway too far from the topic, which is "What's your opinion on Unconditional Basic Income?". Comments to others opinions are of course free to go far from the topic, but preferably not too far.

And please try to be constructive and mature in your comments to others on this conversation.

Also please read AT LEAST the provided Wikipedia article on Basic income as it will answer many questions posted here.


Thank you for reading this explanation...(?)

Topics: basic income
+8
Share:

Closing Statement from Jimmy Strobl

Wow, thank you ALL for your contributions to this conversation!

There's no way that I'm going to be able to summarize what was said here.
But I do feel that people might be ready for this transition or at least they are able to be convinced that it is feasible.

Anyway, thank you all for your participation and sorry for the lack of response the last few days.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jan 6 2014: People think that if you give people what they need they wont want to work, then all those who do work carry a bunch of non-contributors through life. I think they are looking at it wrong; a person who is content with some standard allocation may not need to work but they do not consume, not on the level that people with money to spare do, it actually makes things more sustainable.

    People who do work no doubt will get their compensation for doing so, and with that can acquire their rewards, rewards that one who does not work will not have access to. So if you are happy with a standard allocation then fine, if not then work and earn more, but don't complain about those who are content with the standard.

    But what is a persons potential? Is it being all they want to be or is it being all society wants them to be? Or perhaps some balance of the two? At what point is a line drawn in self-determination and social obligation? Is it self-sufficiency (relative to a persons membership to a society)? I think it is societies duty to prepare each person with the abilities necessary to strive for their own potential, however they define it personally, if they prove a contributor or not is beside the point, a contributor will be rewarded while someone who is merely embracing their own potential will be satisfied. And best if you can do both.

    When you think about Capitalism, it is founded on the principle that when a person strives for themselves, the rest of society inadvertently benefits, but the true meaning of this philosophy is lost on modern Capitalism, my point here is the real incarnation of the sentiment.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.