> The point of work is to not have to anymore so you can follow your passions.
So Bob needs to work so Fred can follow his passion for surfing and video games?
So Bob needs to work so Fred can follow his passion for surfing and video games?
Bob's work isn't subsidizing Fred's lifestyle unfairly (at least under Yang's proposal) because the UBI is paid for by a tax on consumption (the VAT)
So then it's Bob's consumption that subsidizes Fred? That doesn't seem fair either. When Bob consumes, he spends money he earned through work. One way or another, money he earned is taken from him and given to Fred.
People are trying to express this idea that the "people will be lazy and content themselves with a meager UBI" is not an accurate one, and nearly every reply you've made has been a nonsequitor about how we should presumably be resentful at paying surfers to surf.
Nothing I've seen in this thread would satisfy the people who keep working.
Most people feel a fundamental sense of moral injustice and outrage when people who work are forced to support people who could work but choose not to. That is why our current welfare systems have means testing.
The thought is that we have enough Bobs in the world now, and enough technology and infrastructure, that allowing the Bobs to be Bobs and the Freds to be Freds will still work out fine.
(And I agree.)
AKA: responsibility