I still cannot comprehend how anyone with a basic knowledge of economics can perceive this as a good idea. All universal income can achieve is increasing the cost of living to the point where it is as if there is no universal income.
In other words, the universal income idea simply increases the cost of living by the same factor of the increased income. Perhaps it takes a year or two, so the poor benefit during that time, but in the end all it does is destroy the currency and suppress economic growth.
"There is no such thing as a free lunch"
Point being, there's always some trade off. All universal income does is push the cost of lunch onto the wealthy even more.
> Point being, there's always some trade off. All universal income does is push the cost of lunch onto the wealthy even more
Yes, that is the point of welfare. Universal income is a type of welfare. It is a form of welfare which is preferable to other forms because of its simplicity of implementation.
In other words, the universal income idea simply increases the cost of living by the same factor of the increased income. Perhaps it takes a year or two, so the poor benefit during that time, but in the end all it does is destroy the currency and suppress economic growth.
"There is no such thing as a free lunch"
Point being, there's always some trade off. All universal income does is push the cost of lunch onto the wealthy even more.