We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Neil Wilson
Computer Science Consultant. Economics Blogger.
Basic Income attempts to pay people under what should probably be called the l’Oréal Principle (“because you’re worth it”). They want to be paid first and then perhaps do something later if they feel like it. That is a complete reversal of the principle of contribution. Everywhere else you have to be of service to others and put them in your debt first, before you receive anything of real value in return.AI Verified source (2016)
2y ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote directly discusses and criticizes the idea of a basic income as a policy—paying people without prior contribution—so it addresses the core of implementing a universal basic income and clearly opposes it.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 19d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The quote criticizes 'Basic Income' as paying people 'because you’re worth it' and calls it 'a complete reversal of the principle of contribution,' which clearly opposes implementing it.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 19d ago
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote is about basic income rather than universal basic wealth specifically, but it clearly rejects unconditional transfers given before any contribution: the author says people should "put [others] in your debt first, before you receive anything of real value in return." A capital endowment at birth is also an unconditional grant without prior contribution, so the quote clearly implies opposition to the full statement.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 18d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Unverifiable
The quote clearly criticizes "Basic Income" and the idea of being "paid first" as "a complete reversal of the principle of contribution," but it does not explicitly address a universal basic wealth system or a capital endowment at birth.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 18d ago
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote clearly opposes unconditional payments to everyone on principle, calling basic income a reversal of the 'principle of contribution.' Since the statement proposes a universal dividend paid to every person on Earth, this strongly implies opposition to the policy as a whole, even though AI labs and equity are not mentioned directly.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 18d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The quote clearly attacks unconditional payments like a universal dividend: it says "Basic Income attempts to pay people" first, calls that a "complete reversal of the principle of contribution," and argues people should "be of service to others" before receiving value.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 18d ago
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote clearly criticizes universal payments detached from prior contribution, calling basic income a reversal of the principle that people should provide service before receiving value. Since the statement's policy includes paying every citizen a dividend, this strongly implies opposition to the policy as a whole, even though AI labs' equity is not mentioned directly.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 18d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The quote clearly attacks universal cash payments: it says "Basic Income" is paying people first "because you're worth it" and calls that "a complete reversal of the principle of contribution," so it opposes a citizen dividend of this kind.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 18d ago
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote explicitly condemns basic income/unconditional payments as violating the principle that people should contribute before receiving value. Since a citizens' dividend funded from AI windfall profits is still an unconditional public payout, the quote clearly implies opposition to the full statement, regardless of funding source.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 18d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The quote explicitly attacks "Basic Income" as paying people "because you're worth it" and calls it "a complete reversal of the principle of contribution," which clearly opposes a citizens' dividend.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 18d ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
ai_verified: the passage is authentic and correctly attributed to Neil Wilson. It appears on Wilson’s own New Wayland post “The Basic Income Illusion” (20 Jul 2021), credited to “NeilW”; the same site’s contact page links the NeilW handle to Neil Wilson. A 7 Dec 2016 Heterodoxia post also reproduces the same English passage and cites the original Medium URL as Neil Wilson’s “Is Basic Income Basically Theft?”. The original Medium page is now gone (410). Minor note: surviving copies spell the brand as “L’oreal,” not the stylized “l’Oréal.” ([new-wayland.com](https://new-wayland.com/blog/the-basic-income-illusion/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 19d ago
AI Unverifiable
Source URL (medium.com) is blocked and cannot be fetched. Web search confirms Neil Wilson is a real economics blogger associated with MMT who publishes on Medium (@neil.muaddib), and the article slug "is-basic-income-basically-theft" is consistent with the quote's anti-UBI tone. The quote's criticism of UBI via the "principle of contribution" aligns with MMT's preference for job guarantees over basic income. Vote direction ("against" on "Implement a universal basic income") correctly matches the quote's critical stance. However, I cannot directly confirm the quote text exists at the source URL.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-6
· 3mo ago
replying to Neil Wilson