[uk_programmer]

No. It is wrong to take from those who want to work to give to those that don't want to. I already pay almost good portion of my earnings to the government to see it squandered on nonsense (e.g. look up the HS2 project in the UK). I am just about to buy property (I've been working now for 20 years and 15 as a software engineer), If I hadn't been paying as much tax I could have bought a property years ago.

Having a form of UBI will increase the tax burden on medium to high earners such as myself. I simply don't believe it is ethical to offer UBI i.e. you are taking my earnings to fund those that unwilling to work, even if it is a tiny percentage it is still wrong on principle.

I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed).

[teekert]

In the Netherlands we basically have UBI. at least when you are judged unfit for work (i.e. because of mental issues) you loose the obligation to apply for jobs when receiving welfare. It keeps people from becoming criminals, it keeps people from ending up in the streets and avoid healthcare. In the end it saves money and makes for a more pleasant society. Most people are nice and motivated to good you know, it does hurt to make them feel like they have some kind of safety net, in fact it motivates them even more. I think in the end it is about how you judge others: Are they motivated like you or are many people lazy unethical scammers? This is a nice book on the topic by the way: [0] (Humankind (2020)), I highly recommend it for people cynical about other people, like you seem to be (in Dutch the book is called: Most people are nice ("De Meeste Mensen Deugen", allthough "Deugen" is more like "Ethical" in this case).

It's nice if you are rich, but you're going to have to build a big wall around your house and stay inside if you let inequality go rampant.

[0] https://www.rutgerbregman.com/books/

[uk_programmer]

As I said previously it is a matter of principle. UBI takes from those willing to work and gives to those that are unwilling. I am not talking about people that are unable to work.

I don't care if someone or some studies say that it works out cheaper or it maybe nicer. It is simply not ethical. However I am someone that given the choice between Monarchy and Democracy, Monarchy is the better choice.

[gridlockd]

> No. It is wrong to take from those who want to work to give to those that don't want to.

It's also wrong to maintain a poorly working system just to prevent that scenario. Most money goes to corporate welfare to maintain jobs that should not exist. I'm not just talking about taxes, I'm talking about government debt, which dwarves tax revenue.

It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful.

> I am just about to buy property (I've been working now for 20 years and 15 as a software engineer), If I hadn't been paying as much tax I could have bought a property years ago.

If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago.

> I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed).

This amounts to a huge bureaucracy to determine who and who isn't entitled. Inevitably, some people fall through the cracks. Other people game the system.

It's not going to be fair either way. Just incentivize people to work and they will work.

If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income, they will be able to take risks. They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them. They will not be put to shame standing in line at the unemployment office.

[uk_programmer]

> It's also wrong to maintain a poorly working system just to prevent that scenario.

I agree. But that still doesn't mean you have a right to take from those (through the form of taxes) to give to those that are unwilling to work.

> It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful.

I had a job and went to university, I unloaded lorries in a warehouse it was very boring. I still spend a lot of my time outside of work reading, coding etc.

People typically have 4-6 hours plus the weekend so another 32 hours to educate themselves, yet most choose their time watching netflix, playing theirs Playstation etc, going to the bar (nothing wrong with those in themselves btw). Online courses are inexpensive these days and it is literally at your fingertips. Before there were online courses people used to go to night schools to learn. The opportunities are there but people choose not to pursue them, that is up to them.

> If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago.

There are many reasons why property prices in the UK are ridiculous. However if wasn't taxed to the high heavens I would have been able to afford it sooner regardless of why the prices were high. In any event, it was just an example of how I could have spent my money differently that would have directly benefited me.

> If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income,

I run my own business, I took a risk. I didn't need the government to help me. The willingness to take risks and better yourself doesn't need the government to be involved.

>They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them.

I hate it when people use this rationale. You get paid for going to work. You have plenty of rights at work. You are not exploited. You sign up willingly to work. It isn't exploitation. I don't buy into this whole "capitalism exploits the workers" marxist thought process.

[Firadeoclus]

An alternative take: It is wrong to deprive people of the means of subsistence by privatising the commons and offering no alternative.

In that context, a UBI isn't just a support mechanism.

[uk_programmer]

They can find another job, they can start their own business, they can get contracts for their labour, if they are talented they can get patrons. There are alternatives, just because you have fallen for the siren song of UBI doesn't mean it is the only way.