The default position of people who support this idea is to revert to slogans and cliches; I guess that makes sense. It means they don't have to explain how something like this would be PAID FOR in reality. Give us the details. Give us how it could be paid for. Give us specifics, not "life is unfair, it should be fairer."electron wrote:
It's not a case of cost, except in the reduction of bureaucratic costs.
It's a case of how to distribute an economy's surpluses while maintaining or increasing incentives.
.
I will repeat my question. At a time when western economies around the world are in massive debt, are spending far more on benefits and services than they take in taxes, and struggle to meet their existing relatively paltry welfare bills, how on earth will they pay for a free basic monthly income for everyone, regardless of whether the recipients need it or not.
You can't keep bleating 'it's not about cost'. Simply repeating a falsehood over and over doesn't make it the truth.