Read on Twitter
The argument against a UBI assumes it would be a substitute for other social programs. The discussion changes if a UBI is a complement to other social programs.
Many goods and services are delivered through the market. A UBI ensures everyone has greater access to those goods and services.
There’s also the argument that some people don’t need the money. Yes. But if the money is made taxable, then it will be taxed back from those that don’t need it.
However, many might appear not to need it only because they’re trapped in jobs they hate, that are debilitating, degrading, etc.
A UBI would free them of much financial pressure keeping them in a job that is harming them.
A UBI would also compensate people for much of the work that goes unvalued. Parenting is the most obvious. However, Jane Jacobs documents many other types of work that are valuable but unremunerated.
But this needs to be a complement to universal basic services and a job guarantee.
We also should be taking some things out of the market, like mental health care, pharmaceuticals, dental care....
And some market provisioned goods and services should be significantly augmented with social provision, especially housing.
