By: Tao Wells

Tao Wells — Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:33:09 +0000

If UBI (Universal Basic Income) came at the expense of other social programs, such as health care or child care, as Friedman intended, then the rising cost of housing would draw money away from other previously socially provisioned services, forcing families with modest incomes to improve their substandard housing by accepting worse or less childcare or healthcare, or vice versa. A disabled person whose mobility needs requires additional expenditure on accessible housing may not have enough of the basic income left for any additional health care they also require. Yet replacing means testing and special programs that address specific needs is the big idea of UBI.

The notion that we can solve inequality within capitalism by indiscriminately giving people money and leaving the provisioning of all social needs to corporations is extremely dubious. While this view is to be expected among those, like Murray and Friedman, who promote capitalism, it is not compatible with anticapitalism. UBI will end up in the hands of capitalists. We will be dependent on these same capitalists for everything we need. But to truly alleviate poverty, productive capacity must be directed toward creating real value for society and not toward “maximizing shareholder value” of profit-seeking investors.

Dmytri Kleiner – 08/08/2016
http://www.furtherfield.org/features/articles/universal-basic-income-neoliberal-plot-make-you-poorer

Comments on: Brian Eno: the basic income is needed to serve the creative genius of the community (i.e. the ‘scenius’)

By: Tao Wells