Hey Julian! It's interesting - that you linked Universal Basic Income with socialism. I never thought about it in that way before. I was a proponent for it, but on second thoughts, I'm not very sure if it is also a means of keeping everyone satisfied at a low minimum standard of living.
That, would be very dystopian-like indeed.
Yes I'm no expert, but the concept of the UBI is a very complex one to see objectively. It may foster a lower survival mode of little creativity, because necessity is the mother of invention so if you have your basic needs met, you may end up vegetating and not creating, which is not ideal for the masses but may pacify us so the elite can carry on growing. The pros and cons of it are intricate.
UBI is absolutely a socialist policy. It is an allocation of the tax budget (and therefore paid for by tax payers). Socialist (government-controlled/centralized) economic policy is the opposite of free market policy... and in every case, free market allows for competitive solutions which gives us the best possible solution... UBI from taxation is not a free market solution, and therefore does not get the benefit of "best possible value" that a true free market enables.
Dear @jbgarrison72
Tax budget is build on tax payers but also on corporations that are paying taxes.
Imagine scenario, where corporations need to pay higher taxes for "access to the market". At some stage those taxes will means so so so much more than all taxation coming from "humans".
UBI can happen. That's an economic model that could be achieved in the future. But the biggest challenge is social impact on us. I can forsee large scale of suicides being a problem.
Yours
Piotr
There are some smoke and mirrors with the presentation and understanding of corporations. In reality, as you know, a "corporation" as it exists to day is a government creation (the fiat decree that allows the corporation to come into existence is a charter or license). Corporations are really just "government" warrants which place them farther away from an actual free market... especially through the displacement of liability (individuals are protected by government from the consequences that a single person not operating under the government shielding of "corporation" would not be protected from).
Corporations are another way for government to maintain control of who does business and to stifle undesired competition for goods and services it decides to maintain firm control on. Government only selectively regulates "corporations," ultimately to its own benefit (and more on point, to the benefit of it's chief influencers/owners).
The free market always regulates from the opposite direction, that is, rather than shutting out/regulating out competition... it always provides and open avenue for more new and better services and products to emerge in the gap left by bad business practices.
Such a free market always creates more value because it only ADDS value whereas government regulation always works by LIMITING value so that its favored "entities" can thrive without competition.
Thus, a free market, which always presents new niches of value, allows ANYONE who desires to work and improve his/her economic status to go forth and do so to the best of his/her ability and... to profit!
A regulated government environment, kills value and through taxation and distributed "free stuff" (to include any sort of UBI), it kills incentive to improve one's economic situation through producing more and better.
Thank you for that brilliant comment @jbgarrison72