> desirable quality of life for all

Then what is there left to work for? Also, I thought the job of a society was to protect it's citizens' negative rights (various freedoms from, freedom from want not being one).

I think this might turn out something like retirement, as people will have to work less: some people make very good use of their extra resources, but many will just sit and watch TV. This is a bit in an inherent bias in the HN crowd, because most of us tend to be more intellectually curious and would likely spend the time learning a new language, etc.

> Then what is there left to work for?

Mamy people find work fulfilling, or enjoy being challenged. There is charity work too, where you can work towards the benefit of others less fortunate than yourself.

Also, keep in mind that UBI is meant to be just that - a basic income; nobody is going to be living the life of Riley on UBI. People are human, and inevitably want better, or more - and working, or starting a business (which I expect we'd see more of) is a means to that end.

> Then what is there left to work for?

Perhaps to pass the time? You can’t just sit around and do nothing.

I live in Seattle. There’s a sizable portion of society here who would love to stay home, smoke weed and play XBox. I’m not inclined to pay more taxes for them to do so.

Of course, if there is somehow 'enough money' in the system let's give it to the people to guarantee 'sustainable and desirable quality of life'. Question is where to take such large amounts of money for everyone. I know one country where citizens get free money - Quatar, that's because of oil and because they use cheap labor from immigrants from various African and Asian countries.

Whole idea of basic income is like from communist manifesto. You need to exploit someone or some other nation in order to get money for your citizen who wants to have 'sustainable quality of life for free'. A) exploit rich people B) exploit immigrants and use them for cheap labor

both ways are historically verified

Yeah, but they will have to work more than now, beacuse they will be paying higher taxes.

> And if they want to do them, they will have to work.

I thought that was the argument _against_ UBI?

UBI would be a VERY LOW income. Not enough for nice restaurants and ski trips.

I'm perplexed by the number of people who think that UBI means giving everyone so much money that they would never do anything to get more.

I think it's a matter of ongoing debate.

Some people think UBI should be enough for emergency rations only, similar to food stamps now. Some people think it should be enough for a very-low-income but working person's expenses now. Some people think it should be enough for a few basic treats as well.

For example, the Living Wage Foundation uses the Rowntree Foundation's Minimum Income Standard to set their 'living wage', which does include luxuries such as eating in restaurants and even an annual holiday (I struggle to afford that!), so what they think is 'minimum' clearly isn't literally just enough to just 'live' on.

People have the same attitude towards what UBI should be.

Would you set UBI to below what Rowntree thinks is the 'minimum to live on'?