While at first glance, both Universal Basic Income (UBI) and Universal Basic Services (UBS) seem like perfect ways to help society, there are some very common counter arguments to both of them. One is the question of how either UBI or UBS would be funded. Many opponents of these ideas argue that there is no way to fund them, and that simply asking taxpayers to pay more is unfair. But an individual contribution is actually far less than it seems: after all, if you’re also a recipient of UBI (or using services provided for free by UBS), you’re getting a part of your contribution back - and if you’re extremely wealthy, you won’t feel the difference anyway.
Another common argument, this time from people who support UBI/UBS, is, “Why should we give UBI/access to UBS to billionaires anyway?” It’s simple: a billionaire (or just someone wealthy) will simply return that favor through their taxes. But if they suddenly became destitute, they will still receive the income (that they have effectively prepaid).
In the case of UBS, they would simply have to give up luxuries, but they would be able to live a dignified life either way. A third argument is that people would simply use their income/extra cash not spent on UBS on drugs and alcohol - but studies have proven that economic security improves decision-making, and unfortunately, the idea that poor people misuse any extra funds is much more of a hurtful stereotype than it is rooted in reality.
Let's discuss universal basic income here
