Couldn't see a thread relating to this, but it was brought up elsewhere in a ham-fisted way. I think its worth exploring the idea on a separate post. The current rapid development of AI and automation has made this an increasingly popular topic of discussion. Much of this revolves around what will be an increasing gap of tech knowledge and skills for the working class as each generation goes on (see the latest South Park for an example: "Mining and driving trucks are not jobs of the future"). I won't go into more detail on this scenario, as it leads to its own tangent, but would UBI be an answer to this? I'll start with how I would perceive a theoretical UBI system, since I see a lot of different interpretations that range from "literally everyone on welfare" to "it shouldn't exist because its wrong". My proposal will use the UK as an example, since it's the place I best know. The UK spent a total of £258 billion on Welfare in 2015. What I am proposing, is that Welfare would be erased and used in part towards this UBI system. However unlike other more Socialist leaning suggestions, it does not end there. The amount UBI would pay out will not provide enough to cover rent + food + travelling expenses as it currently does under welfare, but would instead provide an large portion towards basic survival, with the aim of making work a "top up" of wages to dictate what kind of quality of life you will have. What this would mean is your employer would pay you less, whilst your overall income would be the equivalent of what you have in the current system. Lets say your income per year was £18,000 as someone in a call centre. Your employer would pay you only £8000, where the £10,000 would be the basic income. What this would allow is a greater tax on these companies to support UBI on top of the reassigned funding for Welfare, which looks to be more than enough in theory to accommodate the UK's current population. Now one of the counter arguments I often see to UBI as a whole is quite a "feelsy" one, with understandable concerns, where it would encourage laziness. If UBI was a pumped-up Welfare system everyone could exist on, then yes I believe it would certainly be a danger, however if the money itself is not enough to give you the quality of life you desire (short of Water, tinned bargain beans and no clothes or transport), then there is your incentive to "top up" your income. What you can then dedicate your time to depends on you. If you are a hard working individual who scoffs at the idea of UBI because "lazy people", well congratulations! By your estimate you will be in more demand under this proposed system than you currently are, again with no less income because you will work as you already do. For those who would like using this time to take more risk in an entrepreneurial manner, your risk will no longer mean you hit zero should it fail. Isn't that what the free market (according to the internet) needs more of to save the economy right now? More people taking more risks and keeping the money moving? So those who are more inclined to be "lazy" still end up in the same position they were always in if they were working, or worse off should they choose not to work full stop. Those who work harder will be in more demand, but also have the option of pursuing something else with the time that they work without falling 100% to a risk which too few are willing to make in the current economic climate. So in short, your income is still the same as it is under our current system, but your employer would pay you less, be taxed more to accommodate for that, allowing you more options to use for your free time from a financial standpoint. Anyway, that's just my theory on the potential of UBI, which as I said seems to be different to the majority of ideas I've looked into. Maybe you think some of those hold more water? Maybe you think UBI is the work of the devil? I'd like to see some more thoughts.