Yes, everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities including food and housing

Universal basic income is unjust, for it is helping some but placing the burdens on others, it is not fair for one to pay for another without the consent of the payer.

We all start at $0 currently in this world. But if we started at the living wage, we wouldn’t have to worry about how we can eat, live, or survive. It’s like a Chuck E-Cheez, give people tokens to participate and you will see an explosion in involvement and innovation of new businesses that benefit us all rather than financial struggle.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. A tax break for one generation guarantees a tax hike for future generations. Decrease economic output. People respond to incentives.

You are not taking into account people who didn't work for or earn that money, and billions or extra dollars will be taken from the American tax payer that they rightfully earned.

Who will pay for this? Currently it seems like republicans take from middle class to give to rich and Democrats take from middle class to give to poor

No. This will lead to mass abandonment of the work force, particularly in customer service based occupations such as: retail, food service, etc.

As a free and predominantly capitalist country I believe that you should live off and bear the fruit of your own labor and so do not agree with the practice of harvesting someone’s work to give to someone else who didn’t work for it

This should not be supported. People will be lazy and will never go to work again. Instead, they will ruin the working class

universal basic income helps everyone that needs it and does not stunt the economie as they government recives enough money in taxes to afford this. the amount of money that persons with disabilitys get is not enough to support someone and it deprives them of basic human things like love. it does not work so something like universal basic income is better for everyone involved.

Doesn't support a capitalistic economy. Less growth and prosperity, as well as a higher national debt, high interest rates, and high inflation.

That only individuals who can't support themselves due to age or a disability should receive supplemental income. All other citizens should be required to finance their own life.

Evidence from hundreds of studies shows that unconditional cash transfers (a form of UBI) have an empowering effect on the recipients. Not only is the money not wasted, but total expenditures on "temptation goods" (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) actually decrease. Furthermore there is no systematic evidence that a UBI discourages work. Some studies even report an increase in labor participation among recipients. And because an influx of cash encourages more total expenditure, UBI tends to have a positive effect on overall employment, even among non-recipients. The interesting exceptions…  Read more include the elderly, people caring for dependents, married women with children, and single mothers. These groups tend to work fewer hours after a cash transfer program. The reason is obvious -- the UBI allowed more time for childcare and dependent care, as well as providing the elderly a true retirement.

Single mothers become stressed and depressed trying to provide for themselves and their children and I think that this would take a lot of stress off their shoulders.

That would destroy capitalism and reduce some people's will to innovate. If people have a higher risk or effort for a lower reward then why would they continue to work in such an environment.

Here’s a great article to support my Idea that degrowth is good—> https://useast2-www.securly.com/broker.php?reason=&categoryid=2147483648&policyid=0&i2n=3672037325&url=d3d3Lm5hdHVyZS5jb20vYXJ0aWNsZXMvZDQxNTg2LTAyMi0wNDQxMi14&ssl=true&pac=true&rand=673927515&spac_did_sync_token=b53030affe8cb0ededc11f56dac716c8

Universal basic income incentivizes more people to not work. It is also proven that working makes people healthier.

Personally, I do believe this would greatly improve the quality of life for many people. Yes, it is true that some people may spend it on things like drugs which are detrimental to their physical and mental health, but for most people it would keep them afloat through tough times (like sickness, injury, loss, etc). There is also the stance that it would give the government control. That is true, and a concern for me and others, so I would propose something like a yearly or three times yearly review and vote by the people of each area for how the current system is working and if they need more…  Read more money to stay afloat (this could be greed in some cases but whatever). Say if people said they needed $2,500 in one area, another needed only $2,000, another needed $3,000, and still another needed $3,250. Then the average would be around $2,750 so they could use that as a guiding figure (keep in mind higher cost of living areas). Just an idea that needs a lot of work, but it is a start!