Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek both advocated basic income. Were they socialists? Despite both winning Nobel prizes in economics, were they free market capitalists who were just too stupid to recognize they were advocating socialism? Or is it more likely you don't understand what basic income is, how it works, and what socialism really is other than a placeholder word for stuff you don't like?
Basic income is money for markets. It can be used as starting capital and often is. Entrepreneurship is a common result of basic income where tried. It's also consumer buying power, so that businesses have customers.
Basic income has nothing to do with shared ownership of the means of production. It has nothing to do with centralization. It's actually further decentralization, because it takes power away from government and gives it back to people. Government doesn't get to decide what to do with tax dollars. Bureaucrats don't. Citizens do. Citizens use basic income to vote in markets as consumers.
I suggest reading about why Hayek supported UBI. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income
I also suggest reading about why Friedman did as well. https://medium.com/basic-income/why-milton-friedman-supported-a-guaranteed-income-5-reasons-da6e628f6070
Then I suggest studying why basic income is so important to capitalism in response to automation. http://www.barrons.com/articles/a-universal-basic-income-for-when-the-robots-come-1499776152
If we agree on the above as our current and future state of automation, then we agree that robots will eventually be the most competitive option for the majority of what we call “work”. In a free market, that means robots should perform as much of the available work as possible, otherwise market resources will not be allocated with maximum efficiency. In other words, humans should not perform work that robots are capable of because it’s an inefficient use of resources. Therefore, detractors of long-term automation are detractors of free market capitalism. If you want the automated future to include human labor because you think humans need to work even if a robot can do it more efficiently, that’s socialism.
How will humans survive without income from jobs? Robots will create income for us. Money is just a store of value that can be traded for goods and services. Today, humans create value through work and receive money for their efforts which they then trade for survival and recreation. If robots are creating value through work in the future, and they don’t need money for survival or recreation (other than energy, maintenance, and replacement), then the incremental value they create after those costs can be transferred to society through a universal basic income. This is the most efficient way to transfer the benefits of automation to society while advancing the capitalist ideal. By providing no-strings-attached income to a society that no longer has traditional jobs, you allow individuals to choose how to spend their income, encouraging continued competition and innovation in the free market.
It's ironic perhaps that my (and others) greatest concern with a UBI is that it will be used by governments to cut services they should be providing and just give citizens that money instead. I.e. it has the potential to be a bit too free-market.
Ironic, Hayek's support for a basic income was to prevent social justice manipulation by the state, not to preserve it. In other words to keep government influence out of the free market.
In fact Friedman's support for the idea is based on the same concept. A replacement for government managed programs for support delivered to the poor.
I don't trust government, and I believe human nature always comes out. I cannot conceive of any government program to deliver money directly to people (completely unconstitutional) being free from social justice manipulation, corruption, fraud and abuse, and people when given anything free don't value it and tend to misuse it. Markets also react to "free money" by increasing prices. Look at college tuition and medical services as clear, constant evidence of that very nature in the market.
So you are agreeing now that your initial comment is ironic? You initially said it was socialism and now you say that it has the support of free market proponents because it increases freedom. So which position are you taking now??
Nice try to twist things. No, I don't think my appraisal of UBI as socialist is ironic, or wrong. There are members of the libertarian community who have expressed support for it as an alternative to the current welfare system, claiming its less bad than the status quo. I disagree with them. You stated yourself that one of the flaws you see in the plan is that it might be used to eliminate other government services. These libertarians who voiced support did so on the assumption UBI would replace all other direct payments to the people and cut the size of government. Analysis I have read indicate otherwise. UBI would require, even if it did replace other direct payments,an almost 50% increase in taxes to cover the cost. Its ridiculous. (I can provide articles bearing these numbers out.)
For your reading pleasure:
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_19_04_02_henderson.pdf
And:
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_19_04_05_whaples.pdf
I understand it just fine, thank you very much. It will fail. It will hand more power to the government and corrupt the market in doing so. There is no program of government "free money" that has remained free of abusive fraud, waste, and political manipulation. This can be no different. Take the economy, filter it through a government bureaucracy, and expect a free market to blossom. Unlikely at best.
It hasn't failed where it has been trialled before.
And the long list of such trials are?
See @scottsanten's blog. He's posted articles about a lot of them.
Social Security is UBI for citizens over age 65. Yes it is failing.
It could easily be paid for by reducing your ridiculous military budget.
I would cut that too, to zero. Social Security and Medicare already take up 60% of the federal budget (military is about 20%) and they only serve mostly older people. How much will it cost with everyone enrolled? Likely several Trillion a year, an impossibly high cost we cannot bear.
Look at @scottsantens articles. He's costed it. It's not all that much. And the critical point is, actually, that we can't afford not to. Capitalism will collapse without a moneyed up consumer class.
I will.
So say in the US, how much should a monthly UBI payment be?
I read some of his articles, they seem to accidentally leave out the costs. Instead, he demands taxes and free money. Taking out of one pocket and putting it in the other creates no additional wealth. In fact, every time it changes hands, it gets smaller. If they want to bankrupt each other to fund UBI payments, I'm fine with that, just don't force me to join. And don't ask government to manage it, they literally can do nothing right.
I like the way you think. Preach it.
If people are not free to chose how they spend their earned income, it takes the legs out from under the free market. Any program that begins with theft is beginning with the destruction of wealth and choice.