• Wilzax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    How would this be corporate welfare? It’s been shown that a UBI is less expensive than what is wasted on the overhead of need-based welfare systems, and eliminates the poverty trap where making more money (such as from overtime or a small raise) disqualifies your household from a higher value of welfare benefits that you would otherwise qualify for.

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because it allows companies extracting extreme profit from labour, paying their upper management exorbitantly and their labourers starvation wages to just keep doing that.

      Edit:

      There seems to be a significant misunderstanding of my post.

      The question posed was “How could one understand this to be corporate welfare”, in conjunction with the previous qualifier of “If the rich aren’t subsidizing the program”

      I’m not against UBI.

      I AM against record profits. Profits are the extraction of surplus value from labour. Profits are unpaid wages.

      The fact that we have an environment where a working person can not meet their basic needs while their employers take in record profits is a massive problem.

      If the wealth transfer happens by way of increased wages, fine. If it happens by way of government transfers via UBI paid for by those same corporations, fine.

      The premise to which I was responding was one where the wealthy were NOT the ones footing the bill.

      • Wilzax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not every step that makes it slightly easier to exist as a poor person that doesn’t solve capitalism is corporate welfare. Celebrate the steps in the right direction or you’ll make progress impossible.

        Never say “It’s not good enough” when you could say “that’s good, what next?”

        • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Never say “It’s not good enough” when you could say “that’s good, what next?”

          Man, what a beautifully positive outlook

      • SHOW_ME_YOUR_ASSHOLE@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Employees who have UBI to fall back on aren’t forced to accept that starvation wage. UBI gives everyone a small amount of fuck-you money. Employers paying starvation wages would find themselves with a lack of qualified employees because people can afford to quit and look for a better job.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you believe that you must believe all programs to help poor people are corporate welfare. And you’re missing three essential other half of the equation that makes UBI possible: increasing taxes in the rich. If a direct transfer of wealth from the upper class to the lower class is corporate welfare, then what isn’t corporate welfare?

        • Windex007@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          pvsrh@lemmy.ca wrote:

          Are we going to tax the wealthy to pay for it? Because otherwise [corporate welfare]

          Wilzax@Lemmy.world asked:

          How would that be corporate welfare…

          The line of questioning was specifically about if the programisn’t funded by the wealthy.