Try the political quiz

30.9k Replies

@8QYJ7B5 from Illinois answered…4mos

Yes, in the form of a Negative Income Tax to cover basic necessities including food and housing

@8QYJ7B5 from Illinois answered…4mos

Yes, but in the form of an opt-in, generous "Negative Income Tax"

@DengekiMatsuko from California answered…6mos

Yes, but for those who are out of work and are actively looking for a job

@94267X2 from Colorado answered…7mos

@9425J2G from Florida answered…7mos

With an income cutoff - Stop making the rich richer and the poor stuck.

@93ZQDBJ from California answered…7mos

UBI should be offered to people in poverty to increase the middle class and given as a temporary option to those who cannot support themselves.

@93VGL9L from Minnesota answered…7mos

Yes, everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities including food and housing, but only on a temporary/test basis. This way the government can get a baseline sense of the funding required to reduce food/housing disparity and can gauge the success of the program prior to deciding whether or not to implement long term.

@57QKT6T answered…7mos

Yes, we are rapidly coming to a point in time where automation will make it difficult for everyone to find a job, especially those with disabilities or other factors preventing them from "moving up" in the world; all citizens should have their basic needs met with the option of working to gain more money for extras.

@92JXK3J from New York answered…7mos

No. I support a National Dividend and Social Credit program as proposed by economist CH Douglas. I think it could solve the problems of UBI but also provide some of the positives of the UBI.

@92C6SMF from Maryland answered…7mos

No, universal basic income would cause inflation and no net change in people's quality of life.

@EthanHars from Iowa answered…8mos

Yes, this should repeal and replace all existing welfare programs

@93CS3TH from Texas answered…8mos

We should wait to consider a program like this until more data is avaliable.

@93BDMP6 from California answered…8mos

Yes, if all other forms of welfare are eliminated and there are no income phase-outs

@Panagioti999 from Michigan answered…8mos

No, expand other social welfare programs like Medicare/Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance instead. UBI is a back door to austerity.

@934R57G answered…9mos

Yes, as the automation takes over jobs, the humans will need to live.

@9324D72 from Arkansas answered…9mos

No, the government should provide housing, food, and amenities to those who need it instead of letting profit-driven corporations control the flow of necessities.

@92NYS4X from Kansas answered…9mos

yes, but it should be slowly phased out and replaced with better social safety nets

@8532KYJ from Georgia answered…9mos

Yes, but it should not be universal, it should only go to the impoverished, the working poor, and lower middle class families

@92JXK3J from New York answered…10mos

@92GWJXX from Georgia answered…10mos

Yes, everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities including food and housing but they should also work.

 Deleted answered…10mos

Yes for lower income brackets; but the wealthy should not qualify for this program, this would be a waste of resources.

 Deleted answered…10mos

No, unless it is exclusively for families and/or owners of government bonds.

 Deleted answered…10mos

Yes, everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities including food and housing but they should still work.

@929M4SL answered…10mos

@9276939 from Pennsylvania answered…10mos

Yes, but make it a requirement to be employed in order to apply, then subtract their U.B.I. from their normal paycheck.

@923Z93G from Pennsylvania answered…10mos

@ThomasJ476 from Georgia answered…11mos

Yes, everyone should receive an income to cover basic necessities including food and housing but only if they work.

 @JaredForALGov from Alabama answered…11mos

Yes, and we need to account for basic human necessities (food, water, & housing) and prevent this type of income from disenfranchising the disabled citizens of our country.

@7PTCG38 from Wisconsin answered…11mos

No, this would create the need for drastic restructuring of funding for existing social programs, and such a plan would be too difficult to administer as the cost-of-living varies greatly in different regions of the country. Expand existing social programs instead by raising their income cap so more people can qualify for their benefits

@heatherdvdprince… answered…11mos

No, this will encourage people not to work, harm economic growth, give the government more power, increase national debt, and let the communists finish taking over (especially the politicians)

@rightandbased from Iowa answered…11mos

No, this will encourage people not to work and harm their spiritual, mental, and social well-being.

@7PTCG38 from Wisconsin answered…11mos

No, this would create the need for drastic restructuring of funding for existing social programs, and the plan would be difficult to administer as the cost-of-living varies greatly in different regions of the country. Expand existing social programs instead by raising their income cap so more people can qualify for their benefits

@7PTCG38 from Wisconsin answered…11mos

No, this would create the need for drastic restructuring of funding for existing social programs, and the plan would be difficult to administer as the cost-of-living varies greatly in different regions of the country. Expand existing social programs instead by raising their income cap so more people qualify for their benefits

@7PTCG38 from Wisconsin answered…11mos

No, this would create the need for drastic restructuring of funding for existing social programs, and the program would be difficult to administer as the cost-of-living varies greatly in different regions of the country. Expand existing social programs instead by raising the income cap so more people qualify for their benefits.

@8ZH98TQ from Georgia answered…11mos

This could harm economic growth so maybe only temporarily give to people with low income

@8ZGPKM9 from Missouri answered…11mos

yes its fun working to help the area your living in when they are struggling and overall

@3HS499C answered…11mos

@8ZDTRL7 from Georgia answered…11mos

Yes, but only if there's evidence of the money not being abused by individuals