The only advantage UBI has over welfare is that it requires less bureaucracy.
If welfare is not scrapped entirely then it's just increases expenses substantially.
If it replaces welfare then people who need more money don't receive more.
And some people don't need more money.
UBI fails because not every person needs money from the state at all.
The real solution is to make welfare simpler and not disincentivize searching a job or saving up money.

>>510570831 (OP)
welfare systems are designed to be a patch for defective people that can't find a job and would otherwise create problems
the argument for UBI is for people to be able to live a basic life regardless of whether they have a job or not
the incentive for searching a job is the opportunity of making more money

There are simple solutions to your criticism, so there's no way UBI supporters haven't thought of it.

>If it replaces welfare then people who need more money don't receive more.
People with less income receive more UBI.

>And some people don't need more money.
Don't give money to the wealthy.

I assume you'e both dishonest and a brainlet.

>>510570833
>People with less income receive more UBI.
>Don't give money to the wealthy.
Then it's just welfare

>>510570832
UBI is more expensive than welfare.

Abolish residential property taxes (home owners already pay the government for utilities, we shouldn't be charged just to have shelter above our heads)
Raise commercial property taxes to compensate for the loss in revenue (Scrooge McDuck and his 20 car garage can afford it)
Outlaw real estate companies from gaming the system and driving up home prices

>>510570836
all good points

>>510570836
>Raise commercial property taxes to compensate for the loss in revenue (Scrooge McDuck and his 20 car garage can afford it)
So yeah, then all of the vulnerable small businesses go bankrupt while the rich ones move overseas to tax havens. Now there's nobody left to tax. Depending on where we are historically, the original retard who came up with this plan who thought that his plan would succeed gets mad, and either is kicked out of office democratically, or entrenches himself in the government and doubles down with worse policies to try to fix the new problems he created.

The problem isn't that you can't "fix" these perceived inequalities, it's that every hamhanded "solution" you think of creates problems through the law of unintended consequences. These consequences are ten times worse than the original perceived problem was before the "fix", see California. Everyone is moving everything to Texas; and if Texas ever gets like California they'll move again to somewhere that wants their business.

The other reason why communism is retarded is the autistic and atheistical focus on wealth as if it is equal to happiness. This is quite a bitter double irony too, because the only thing communism actually accomplishes is destroying the very wealth that its followers obsess over. So congratulations to those low IQ individuals who somehow get duped into this.

And the third great irony on top of that is, that these same people end up being ruled over by a cynical, maniacally power hungry tyrant who is evil and even worse than any of the propaganda they believe, such as the Kim dynasty. If Kim Jong Il or pick your dictator isn't Scrooge McDuck equipped with an added tendency to perform inhumanly demonic human sacrifices like the Great Leap Forward, the Killing Fields, or the Cultural Revolution on a regular basis, then I don't know who is. Slippery slope, etc.

>>510570838
>So yeah, then all of the vulnerable small businesses go bankrupt
Why would this happen if none of them have to pay residential property taxes, and thus can save more money? Ideally, nothing actually changes in this scenario except home owners feel less fucked over by the government

>>510570838
>Anon outlines a plan for LESS taxes for home owners
>Cocksucking bootlicker gets caught up on rich retards having to pay more money to maintain their wagie cages
>"BUT BUT MUH COMMUNISM *SHIIIIIIT SHIIIIIT FAAAAAART*
You're a schizo, take your meds

>>510570838
Or the businesses could
>raise prices
>not be hurt that much anyways because property taxes don't make that much of the state income anyhow
>be outcompeted by new businesses who can make up the difference
Small businesses would benefit because those are often run by a single family or owner and among those property tax would be an expense they would cover from the profits they'd get from their business.

>>510570839
>Ideally, nothing actually changes in this scenario except home owners feel less fucked over by the government
I don't have a strong opinion about residential property taxes (they affect a wide range of people), but if you raise the commercial taxes you will definitely kill business regardless. Yes, this will happen no matter what, because the rich international companies which are minimally affected by the raised tax, and can move their operations out of the taxed area with minimal pain, will outcompete the less competitive small local businesses which go out of business, thus killing any competition. Businesses with international reach like Amazon or some Chinese megacompany or something like that, will destroy the local upstart. So, it's a regrettable policy to raise those tax levels above a competitive level.

I also don't believe in heavily subsidizing specific companies either, which is basically the opposite of taxing them and it also kills competition by selecting winners and losers, and ironically mainland China does this.

>>510570842
>Yes, this will happen no matter what, because the rich international companies which are minimally affected by the raised tax, and can move their operations out of the taxed area with minimal pain
This happens regardless anon

>>510570842
The solution to global international companies could be some overseas wealth transfer tax.

>>510570843
We're still here because some people haven't given up.

>>510570844
You could do that, but it would only affect people who are on a fair playing field. The top ultra-wealthy people have shell companies and tax lawyers, and often lobbyists, who are able to "find" loopholes in every law, but only for them. Their would-be competitors -- who aren't quite as rich as them and might grow to threaten the ultra-rich -- are the only ones who would be hurt by such laws. So, you're helping the ultra-rich here. You will basically have to become a repressive police state to prevent this process, and that isn't even worth it at that point.

>>510570845
how do the shell companies help when they try and transfer their wealth to another country?

>>510570846
Fraud obviously.

>>510570845
>You will basically have to become a repressive police state
Oh yeah and I almost forgot, if actually you do that, one of the ultra-rich guys will maneuver into the position of enforcing this law. So you are only helping him even more.

>>510570842
>I don't have a strong opinion about residential property taxes
Don't look up what the largest PAC in America is

>>510570849
Are they gonna give money to me?

>>510570850
The National Association of Realtors? Probably not, but they are partially the reason why new home prices are fucked so take that with what you will.

>>510570847
Ideally you'd make the pain of pulling that off not worth the effort.

>>510570832
>the argument for UBI is for people to be able to live a basic life regardless of whether they have a job or not
Depends on who's argument it is. Some people just see it as rudimentary safety net that can replace existing bureaucracy with something so simple that it can be managed by like 10 people countrywide, no matter what the country is. In that configuration it's not meant to be enough to sustain yourself indefinitely but rather something that reduces your financial troubles slightly when you lose your job or whatever. It also achieves a lot of the secondary goals like wealth redistribution(upper 50% of the society contributes more to taxes than lower 50%, all receive the same UBI) and so forth without incentivising welfaremaxxing.

The UBI living wage imo is unrealistic because it's so easily hurt by inflation that it will just be constantly increased further spiraling inflation(and it'll be very politically difficult to say stop).

>>510570854
>The UBI living wage imo is unrealistic
In the current economy it probably is. In a futuristic made up scenario where most labor has been automated by a small group of large companies it seems like a necessity though.