Talk Elections

General Politics => Economics => Topic started by: Incipimus iterum on September 05, 2016, 03:26:19 PM



Title: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Incipimus iterum on September 05, 2016, 03:26:19 PM
Discuss!


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: muon2 on September 05, 2016, 06:09:09 PM
As I understand the traditional idea, the public would get an income based on a "social dividend" from government-owned corporations. If so, the best US example is probably the Alaska Permanent Fund which pays to every Alaskan a dividend from the proceeds of the state's petroleum extraction and other natural resources.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Santander on September 05, 2016, 07:14:46 PM
In conjunction with a massive reduction in the welfare state, support. Otherwise, no.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: RFayette on September 05, 2016, 07:43:18 PM
In conjunction with a massive reduction in the welfare state, support. Otherwise, no.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Sumner 1868 on September 05, 2016, 09:42:55 PM
A fairly lazy solution to the issue poverty. I find it utterly bizarre that many of the same people who complain of safety net programs "throwing money at problems" support this proposal.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: DC Al Fine on September 06, 2016, 06:18:21 AM
It's an interesting idea, but it has too many issues to be 'normal, sane etc'. I really like how unintrusive it is compared to traditional forms of aid but it has its problems.

The main issue is that that even a modest minimum income would be hugely expensive, and the clawbacks required to make it affordable would result in ridiculous marginal tax rates for the poor. Even in relatively high tax countries, such a system would be prohibitively expensive. Between that and the implementation issues involved, I think it should be limited to vulnerable populations like families with children, the elderly and disabled.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Mr. Smith on September 06, 2016, 08:37:55 AM
Nervously endorsed.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Torie on September 06, 2016, 11:15:51 AM
Seems like a grossly inefficient way to create a reasonable social safety net (particularly if as described by Muon2, with the highly questionable assumption that government should be running companies, and that such companies would ever generate a profit), and without any incentives for life style changes. HP.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: crazy jimmie on September 06, 2016, 12:09:01 PM
It may be necessary with the advancement of technology. But I do believe that technology destroyign jobs is grossly over stated. I have a lot to write about Universal Basic Incomes and Technology and Jobs.. but I will have to do it later today. Perhaps in a different thread.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 06, 2016, 12:24:33 PM
Seems like a grossly inefficient way to create a reasonable social safety net (particularly if as described by Muon2, with the highly questionable assumption that government should be running companies, and that such companies would ever generate a profit), and without any incentives for life style changes. HP.

One of the World Bank's findings (certainly not a left-leftist institution) in the case of Brazil's Bolsa Família was that a basic income (albeit not a universal one) actually motivated its recipients to take on more economic risk (implicit in which is more ~entrepreneurship~, et cetera), because they had something simple and easy to understand to fall back on if their ventures failed. I'm also not sure how it's less 'efficient' than the bewildering array of piecemail bits of netting that the United States and many other countries current have.

I'm with DC Al Fine on this, although I don't understand economics and finance nearly as well as he does and, who knows, if I did I might disagree with him.

Voted Freedom Policy, on principle if not necessarily in application.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Ebowed on September 06, 2016, 06:24:02 PM
Seems like a grossly inefficient way to create a reasonable social safety net

Eh, the only thing more inefficient than giving poor people money is doing something else.

There are too many examples of "safety net" programs that only become more bloated and less successful as soon as you start removing poor people's direct access to assistance.  (Australia is particularly rife with this sort of thing: the number of publicly funded, privately operated companies making a killing off of "job seekers" while the unemployed languish below the poverty level is beyond comprehension.)

Besides, you let the cat out of the bag when you admit that this is about changing lifestyles, which until you provide more specifics only conjures up pretty negative connotations.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Beet on September 06, 2016, 11:20:11 PM
Yes, if you throw in work.

Basically what I would support is, the government subsidizing certain jobs, such as cashier jobs, that normally would be turned over to machines. Instead, the government contributes, say, $18 an hour, the company contributes $9 an hour, and what you are left with is a very decent wage for a very 'lowly' job (cashier). This way, there is not only income, but good income, and you don't have people sitting around on the couch getting fat and watching reality TV; or doing some BS government make-work, like picking litter off the freeway. You have people working actual jobs making a living wage.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Beet on September 06, 2016, 11:33:38 PM
Yes, if you throw in work.

Basically what I would support is, the government subsidizing certain jobs, such as cashier jobs, that normally would be turned over to machines. Instead, the government contributes, say, $18 an hour, the company contributes $9 an hour, and what you are left with is a very decent wage for a very 'lowly' job (cashier). This way, there is not only income, but good income, and you don't have people sitting around on the couch getting fat and watching reality TV; or doing some BS government make-work, like picking litter off the freeway. You have people working actual jobs making a living wage.

I think caregiving for children and adults who cannot live independently (and similar forms of formerly uncompensated labor) are a better, or at least more promising, example, not to mention one that doesn't require the mediation of a third-party employee. There are already some programs that fill this niche, and I can imagine it becoming very common as our population ages.

But any work requirement invites complications and would make the program more difficult to administer while also introducing all sorts of political battles (and likely abuses by large employers) as they seek to influence these requirements to their maximum benefit. The advantage of compensated caregiving is that it doesn't necessarily require much administrative work or rules enforcement, e.g. you have a child or adult living with you for whom you care, you receive a check for it as long as you're not abusive or neglectful.

Doesn't that already happen with single moms and welfare?


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: DC Al Fine on September 07, 2016, 06:31:48 AM
Seems like a grossly inefficient way to create a reasonable social safety net

Eh, the only thing more inefficient than giving poor people money is doing something else.

People say that, but it ignores the other side of the equation. Take a look at this graph

()

Suppose we want to limit aid to households making $20k per year. This would result in extremely steep implied tax rate for the poor, perhaps in excess of 60%. This is problematic both morally and from an incentives point of view.

In light of this knowledge, many governments opt for less aggressive clawbacks, but this results in ballooning costs and yes, inefficiencies as the government cuts cheques to households that don't need it. From the graph, you can see that a relatively small set of households are low income, but many, many more have moderate incomes. Every time one expands the range of aid, costs and inefficiencies increase dramatically.

To use a real life example, Canada has a modest minimum income for seniors. It costs about 16% of revenue to boost the incomes of a the wealthiest groups in the country. Expanding this to the whole population would be hugely expensive, to the point that it could crowd out things like universal healthcare and education. This is in a country that already has a good size VAT and top tax rates of 46-59%.

There are a lot of tradeoffs required to make even a modest minimum income work. I question whether its worthwhile to implement a universal basic income if universal healthcare could be in jeopardy. It would be better to focus aid on demographics like seniors and children who either cannot earn due to frailty or have no control over their family's income.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Intell on September 07, 2016, 07:44:30 AM
Horrific, and will probably ruin the welfare state, and social programs, ways to alleviate suffering. Let's throw some money, and ignore problems of poverty. F*k yeah.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: ingemann on September 07, 2016, 09:32:49 AM
Horrific, and will probably ruin the welfare state, and social programs, ways to alleviate suffering. Let's throw some money, and ignore problems of poverty. F*k yeah.

The main problem of poverty is lack of money.

So why is this superior to existing social programs. A common problem with social program in the Anglo-Saxon model is that you often end up accidental punish people who try to improve themselves. As example by giving extra money to single mothers, you risk creating incentive for single parent households. By just giving people a sum of money and leave them alone, you create remove the incentives to find loopholes, which are often quite destructive in the long term for the person and community.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: muon2 on September 07, 2016, 12:54:03 PM
To address the implied tax rate for the poor I would think that proponents would give the same basic income to all regardless of earned income. That's what the social dividend would imply. The windfall for the wealthy would be addressed by a conventional progressive income tax. The tax formula would have to collect enough to completely compensate for the basic income grant above the maximum income that would get a benefit.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Arturo Belano on September 07, 2016, 07:42:26 PM
By itself, it's just another band-aid on a cancer patient. Just socialize the means of production instead.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on September 08, 2016, 01:26:25 AM
Seems like a grossly inefficient way to create a reasonable social safety net (particularly if as described by Muon2, with the highly questionable assumption that government should be running companies, and that such companies would ever generate a profit), and without any incentives for life style changes. HP.

This is a bizarre statement. The one thing you cannot say about a universal basic income is that it would be an inefficient means of economic redistribution. It's, as a matter of fact, the most efficient means of redistributing income and, arguably, wealth.

As far as the social safety net goes, you might have a point as far as various kinds of social insurance go (private provision of insurance is fraught with problems of market failure) but, again, a universal basic income is far more efficient than forcing poor people to go through a screening process to receive payments for disabilities or TANF or whatever. The screening process is expensive. Poor people also despise the process.

As far as lifestyle changes go, that's not particularly relevant, is it? Do you actually think that the social problems associated with poverty are the cause of poverty? If so, I suggest you take a few minutes to think about this issue: do you really think it's more plausible that someone was driven to homelessness because they were an alcoholic or that they were driven to alcoholism because of their homelessness?

Look Torie, if you're willing to pay higher taxes so that poor people are forced to suffer before receiving transfer payments, be my guest but at least be honest about the arguments you're making.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: muon2 on September 08, 2016, 06:31:12 AM

As far as lifestyle changes go, that's not particularly relevant, is it? Do you actually think that the social problems associated with poverty are the cause of poverty? If so, I suggest you take a few minutes to think about this issue: do you really think it's more plausible that someone was driven to homelessness because they were an alcoholic or that they were driven to alcoholism because of their homelessness?


I have worked with some homeless. If they were both homeless and alcoholic, then the alcoholism was a contributing factor to their homelessness, not the other way around.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 08, 2016, 07:21:03 AM
Freedom policy in conjunction with a comprehensive welfare state providing free access to other basic goods and services, and not as a substitute for all that.

Doesn't seem all that expensive to me either. Let's say we make it $1000 a month - that would be $12,000 a year. Based on DC's chart, that would cover about 10% of households (does this reweight income by household size, btw? Because it's a pretty meaningless chart otherwise). That would be around 12.5 million households. But you don't have to give $12,000 to each, just enough for them to get to $12,000. A majority of them seem like they already make more than half that much, so let's say on average we give around $5000 each. That's a total cost of around $60 billion, ie 1.5% of the federal budget. You can easily pay for it by scrapping one or two useless military programs.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: DC Al Fine on September 08, 2016, 08:45:04 AM
Freedom policy in conjunction with a comprehensive welfare state providing free access to other basic goods and services, and not as a substitute for all that.

Doesn't seem all that expensive to me either. Let's say we make it $1000 a month - that would be $12,000 a year. Based on DC's chart, that would cover about 10% of households (does this reweight income by household size, btw? Because it's a pretty meaningless chart otherwise).

Afraid not. I'm not an economist, so I'm limited to data I can get online for free. However, I did find some more detailed data on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_household_income_in_2014_according_to_US_Census_data). It gives mean household size and income in each bracket on my chart. Average household side in very low incomes is about 1.9, increasing to about 2.5 in middle income brackets.

But you don't have to give $12,000 to each, just enough for them to get to $12,000. A majority of them seem like they already make more than half that much, so let's say on average we give around $5000 each. That's a total cost of around $60 billion, ie 1.5% of the federal budget. You can easily pay for it by scrapping one or two useless military programs.

I took a look at the more detailed data and your costing is surprisingly accurate even though some of the inputs are way off. Your cost is correct to within 10% Funny how things work.

There are two major costs not included in your calculation:

1) Poverty line in the lower 48 is about $12k for a single, $16k for a couple and $24k for a family with two kids. (https://aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines) Your proposal would solve poverty for singles with no kids, and no one else. And even that is by the guidelines set out by the US government, which many progressives criticize as too strict. Most minimum income proposals are more generous. $18k for a couple is the one I've seen thrown around lately.

2) Your proposal has no payments to households making over $12k, which implies a 100% tax rate on the first $12k of employment income. That creates an outrageous set of incentives. A person could work part time, or even full time for a year and not be any better off for it. I've seen your income tax proposals, and even in your very left wing scheme, Warren Buffet would have a better tax regime than an unemployed single mother, if benefits weren't paid over $12k in income.

As I noted in a prior post, the outrageous cost of minimum incomes doesn't come from topping up the incomes of the destitute; it comes from making the clawbacks reasonable.  As you reduce the clawback rate, benefits are paid to the more numerous lower middle class, dramatically increasing the cost. To use a Canadian example, the three major benefits are clawed back at 7, 15, and 50 cents on the dollar respectively, and the 50% one is bitterly opposed by the NDP and some Liberals.

I made a basic model based on the data I linked and a pretty standard proposal of $18k and a 30% clawback rate cost well over half of discretionary spending, and that's at an upper middle class implied tax rate.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on September 08, 2016, 09:14:26 PM
But you don't have to give $12,000 to each, just enough for them to get to $12,000. A majority of them seem like they already make more than half that much, so let's say on average we give around $5000 each.

If someone is making $11,000 and gets $1,000 free, what's the incentive to quit working and just get $12,000 free?  To avoid that problem, you need to structure any such program so that getting paid more to work actually leads to having more money,  If indeed $12,000 is the desired guaranteed basic income, then perhaps half of the difference between what they make and $24,000 would have a chance of working as intended.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: ag on September 08, 2016, 11:53:47 PM
Alas, while it would solve some of the worst poverty cases, it would also exacerbate long-term poverty. It would, pretty much, guarantee an existence of a stable underclass, without any education and any experience of employmenet in generations - or any chance to get out of this. While it would go a long way to calm down the uneasy consciousness of the middle class, it would, actually, hurt those below it. So, though well-intentioned, it is not a good policy. While appearing to be egalitarian, it is, actually, going to have exactly the opposite effect: entrenching the firm class divisions, reducing mobility and competition.

Now, I am all in favor of the society helping those less fortunate. It is just that this is not going to help, but hurt.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: ag on September 08, 2016, 11:56:25 PM


One of the World Bank's findings (certainly not a left-leftist institution) in the case of Brazil's Bolsa Famķlia

Let us stop right here. Bolsa Familia involves a "conditional cash transfer". That is not the same thing as the "universal basic income at all". These sorts of programs are, actually, pretty useful in combating poverty. It is just that they are very different from what you think they are.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: ag on September 08, 2016, 11:59:39 PM
By itself, it's just another band-aid on a cancer patient. Just socialize the means of production instead.

Great idea. It will guarantee that pretty much everybody, except, perhaps, for the top managers - assuming these are corrupt - will live worse than the current poor do. In case you find the incorruptible managers, than you will guarantee that not even they will live well - without any improvement for anybody else. So, if you like a life that is nasty, brutal and short - be my guest, do this.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: ag on September 09, 2016, 12:00:53 AM
It may be necessary with the advancement of technology.

Bullocks. Technology has nothing to do with it. The luddite argument is no truer today than 200 years back.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: ag on September 09, 2016, 12:03:48 AM
do you really think it's more plausible that someone was driven to homelessness because they were an alcoholic or that they were driven to alcoholism because of their homelessness?


Alas, at least in rich societies, the former is far more likely to be true.

I am not blaming the poor here. In fact, alcoholism is a disease that derserves treatment - like any mental disease or addiction. But your assertion is, in fact, quite bizarre.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: ag on September 09, 2016, 12:06:52 AM
Once again: I am all in favor of well-designed anti-poverty programs. But "universal basic income" would be a pro-poverty  program.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on September 09, 2016, 02:46:46 AM
do you really think it's more plausible that someone was driven to homelessness because they were an alcoholic or that they were driven to alcoholism because of their homelessness?


Alas, at least in rich societies, the former is far more likely to be true.

I am not blaming the poor here. In fact, alcoholism is a disease that derserves treatment - like any mental disease or addiction. But your assertion is, in fact, quite bizarre.

Except it's not bizarre: you are making a statement based on conventional wisdom alone. Just because you are an economist and muon is a legislator does not mean that you understand anything about the psychology of drug dependence or homelessness. The reality is that there are a number of causal factors that are related and disentangling them is very difficult. I believe that a given homeless person was far more likely to be dependent on drugs or alcohol before they were driven to being homeless than a given member of the population but I don't think this number is high enough to merit the hand-wavy claims that you are making. Where is your evidence?

Fwiw, I have evidence, the issue is that I'd have to try very hard to produce journal articles for you because the evidence is contained in the citations of a book I read 3 years ago. I don't remember any of the authors off of the top of my head. Suffice it to say that there have been a number of really illuminating "difference in difference" type case studies conducted that demonstrate that, when given shelter, most of the homeless are pretty employable, sharply curtail drug/alcohol use etc.

I can, however, produce links that quite strongly argue against your points:
()

()

These images were taken from a CAP paper titled "On the Streets" which can be read here: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2010/06/21/7983/on-the-streets/ (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2010/06/21/7983/on-the-streets/)

The fact that being LGBT is correlated with homelessness and being LGBT and homeless is correlated with alcoholism is a data point that quite strongly argues against your claim. Do you think that being gay predisposes you to abusing drugs? The answer is, of course not, these people abuse drugs/alcohol at high rates because they're at a higher risk of being sexually or physically assaulted due to their sexual orientation or gender identity and alcohol is a coping device. They were cast out of their families/social networks for their identity and, as a result, have a bad time.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on September 09, 2016, 03:10:53 AM
Once again: I am all in favor of well-designed anti-poverty programs. But "universal basic income" would be a pro-poverty  program.

Have you ever read about the Mincome experiment or experiments in Namibia or the experiment conducted for Nixon's negative income tax proposal? If not, I can't take anything you write about this topic very seriously because, well, it's not intellectually honest nor is it economics.

The economic case for a universal basic income or a negative income tax is pretty straightforward: it's more efficient and, yet, more expansive than other kinds of targeted welfare programs. It clearly would produce substantial increases in human health, educational attainment and also, strangely enough, decrease incidences of spousal abuse. Considering that it has never been implemented at a national level, we cannot compare its efficacy to conditional cash transfers but I suspect that the wild success of CCTs is largely related to the fact that the money is offered as an almost guaranteed source of income; it's not particularly difficult to provide incentives for people to send their kids to school or to have them have check-ups. Give poor people money without strings attached and I imagine they'd make fairly similar choices.

Anyways, I'd support a CCT program in the US. I don't particularly care. The point is to redistribute income and wealth in an efficient manner that also increases the growth path a country is on.

edit: I didn't see one of your posts. Um, google "mincome" or read about universal basic income experiments. I think you have the capacity to find this data yourself. It's pretty clear and also quite stunning. If you don't want to believe the data and are searching for reasons to claim that it's implausible, I pity you because this means that you have a very dim view of the poor and also of the human condition. There are reasons to be skeptical of the viability of a negative income tax or a universal basic income in the long-run but none of them are related to the claim that "it would, pretty much, guarantee an existence of a stable underclass, without any education and any experience of employment in generations".


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: muon2 on September 09, 2016, 10:44:14 AM
I did a brief search of peer-reviewed studies. This one is from 2009 (http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ps.2009.60.4.465).

Quote
Research with homeless groups suggests that in most cases, psychopathology and substance abuse precede the onset of homelessness, supporting a view of mental disorders as risk factors for homelessness among young people, but it must be acknowledged that disorders can also follow a period of homelessness.

So though both directions of causality are found in the study, one direction was statistically preferred. The article also notes that drug abuse is now bigger than alcohol abuse as a factor leading towards homelessness. I suspect my obsrvations from 10-20 years ago are now dated in regards to alcohol.

Quote
On the other hand, recent work has found that drug abuse is more strongly associated than alcohol abuse with a first homeless episode, indicating that drug abuse may have become a more important risk factor for homelessness among young people in the United States.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: muon2 on September 09, 2016, 03:11:21 PM
There's an certain irony to the lack of stable employment. During the tech boom of the 1990's it became fashionable for tech sector workers to frequently change jobs. My wife, who consults in that field, once described to me that any tech resume where a person worked more than 3 years at their current company was likely to be put at the bottom of the interview pile. The 401K boom could be traced to the the same set of workers who demanded more portability for retirement income and wouldn't stay long enough to vest in a  traditional plan.

Before long many other industries were copying the tech model, especially in companies that had an exposure to the tech sector. But the 2000's started with the dot com bust and ended with the Great Recession while the new trendy employment model got locked in. Unless a new generation of entrepreneurs makes long-term hires fashionable again, I'm not sure how one returns to the model where most workers expect to spend their career at one location.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: muon2 on September 09, 2016, 05:03:46 PM
There's an certain irony to the lack of stable employment. During the tech boom of the 1990's it became fashionable for tech sector workers to frequently change jobs. My wife, who consults in that field, once described to me that any tech resume where a person worked more than 3 years at their current company was likely to be put at the bottom of the interview pile. The 401K boom could be traced to the the same set of workers who demanded more portability for retirement income and wouldn't stay long enough to vest in a  traditional plan.

Before long many other industries were copying the tech model, especially in companies that had an exposure to the tech sector. But the 2000's started with the dot com bust and ended with the Great Recession while the new trendy employment model got locked in. Unless a new generation of entrepreneurs makes long-term hires fashionable again, I'm not sure how one returns to the model where most workers expect to spend their career at one location.

Right, but I'm not sure that it makes much sense to compare the person who's earning $300 per hour as a consulting data architect to the person who's scraping by as an temp doing secretarial work, or an adjunct commuting between three colleges to earn the equivalent of the minimum wage or less. How are they manifestations of the same phenomenon? On one side you have highly skilled professionals who maintain as much autonomy as possible because they can command the best compensation and working conditions, as well as the most interesting work, by avoiding long-term commitments. On the other are people with minimal autonomy and very little leverage.

There's also an interesting contrast to be drawn with other highly paid, highly trained professionals - I'm thinking chiefly of doctors and lawyers - who are less likely than ever to be working independently. Physicians in particular tend to be very anxious about the level of consolidation in health care and the increased difficulty of maintaining an independent practice.

That's why I thought there was a certain irony. The skilled workers of the then new information economy drove much of the rest of the economy towards the work model they preferred. I doubt it's the model that those same skilled workers would have wished on the old economy if they thought about the result 20 years later.

The traditional professions indeed have seen two directions of movement. On one hand there has been consolidation towards larger groups, but I see doctors and lawyers more frequently changing firms for better work, much as in the tech sector.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: ag on September 09, 2016, 08:42:28 PM
We already have a growing underclass of people who go through much or all of their adult lives without ever finding stable employment. I don't really understand the objection, because they're already here whether you see them or not.

Well, the objection is that something should be done to get them out of it, should it not? There are many ideas out there that would, at least, try doing it.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: ag on September 09, 2016, 08:48:24 PM
Once again: I am all in favor of well-designed anti-poverty programs. But "universal basic income" would be a pro-poverty  program.

Have you ever read about the Mincome experiment

You mean, a series of (mostly short-term and not entirely randomized)  1970s studies that pretty much established that giving people cash for not working results in nearly proportional reduction in wage income? Yes, I heard of those. Hard to say how this aids your argument, though :)

I mean, there is a reason why those studies did not lead to a wide adoption of this policy.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: ag on September 09, 2016, 08:55:55 PM
I suspect that the wild success of CCTs is largely related to the fact that the money is offered as an almost guaranteed source of income; it's not particularly difficult to provide incentives for people to send their kids to school or to have them have check-ups. Give poor people money without strings attached and I imagine they'd make fairly similar choices.

Well, there is evidence it is not the case. To begin with, check-ups and school attendance have not been the universal norm even in areas where they were available before. I am not a specialist here, but the specialists do seem to agree there is a heck of a difference.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on September 09, 2016, 10:33:16 PM
Once again: I am all in favor of well-designed anti-poverty programs. But "universal basic income" would be a pro-poverty  program.

Have you ever read about the Mincome experiment

You mean, a series of (mostly short-term and not entirely randomized)  1970s studies that pretty much established that giving people cash for not working results in nearly proportional reduction in wage income? Yes, I heard of those. Hard to say how this aids your argument, though :)

I mean, there is a reason why those studies did not lead to a wide adoption of this policy.

Except, the thing is, this was concentrated among two very specific demographics in the case of Manitoba's Mincome experiment: mothers of young children and high schoolers. To my knowledge, there was not a drop-off in "wage income" for other demographics that was statistically significant. When it comes to public policy, exactly which demographic is more affected by increases in non-labor income matters a great deal, no? I don't particularly care if more young people drop out of the labor market to finish their studies or if young mothers drop out of the labor market to raise their kids; this is actually pretty desirable and highlights the benefits of a universal basic income.

Well, no, the reason why there was not a wide adoption of the policy relates to shifts in political power.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: NeverAgain on September 09, 2016, 11:02:46 PM
I would argue that EITC is a much better anti-poverty program. UBI is a silly goal. Everyone deserved a helpful hand up, not a handout. Giving people "free money" isn't helpful to the real goal of reducing poverty.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 10, 2016, 08:12:56 AM

Fair point. The thing is, I'm not really concerned with "perverse incentives" because, to be honest, I don't want to encourage people to work. I think people should work if they want to, but I don't subscribe to the visions of society wherein employment should be the ultimate goal of an individual. The current economic system makes it perfectly possible to guarantee everyone a comfortable existence even if a significant share of the workforce doesn't participate, provided sufficient redistribution.

Still, if my estimate was too conservative, let's triple it: still less than 5% of the budget. It would require a few changes to pay for it, but would still be far from having a prohibitive cost.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: muon2 on September 10, 2016, 08:39:02 AM

Fair point. The thing is, I'm not really concerned with "perverse incentives" because, to be honest, I don't want to encourage people to work. I think people should work if they want to, but I don't subscribe to the visions of society wherein employment should be the ultimate goal of an individual. The current economic system makes it perfectly possible to guarantee everyone a comfortable existence even if a significant share of the workforce doesn't participate, provided sufficient redistribution.

Still, if my estimate was too conservative, let's triple it: still less than 5% of the budget. It would require a few changes to pay for it, but would still be far from having a prohibitive cost.

What then is the incentive to work at unskilled or semiskilled positions? If those are not filled, then how does one maintain an economic system that can make that guarantee? Generally those jobs aren't filled out of a sense of personal fulfillment, but to have a better life than one might otherwise have through the income earned. If there is a guarantee of a comfortable existence then what advantage is there to work in a low-paying job that is not personally fulfilling in and of itself?


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: DC Al Fine on September 10, 2016, 09:56:24 AM

Fair point. The thing is, I'm not really concerned with "perverse incentives" because, to be honest, I don't want to encourage people to work. I think people should work if they want to, but I don't subscribe to the visions of society wherein employment should be the ultimate goal of an individual. The current economic system makes it perfectly possible to guarantee everyone a comfortable existence even if a significant share of the workforce doesn't participate, provided sufficient redistribution.

Do I really need to explain to a progressive why regressive tax schemes are a bad idea?

There is no justice in taxing away 100% of the poor's income. It inhibits economic mobility, and creates a disincentive to move beyond the minimum income. If you want to create a permanent underclass, 100% clawback rates are a good start.

Still, if my estimate was too conservative, let's triple it: still less than 5% of the budget. It would require a few changes to pay for it, but would still be far from having a prohibitive cost.

Except your proposal was unworkable due to the clawback rates, and wouldn't have even eliminated poverty. Actual proposals ask for higher incomes and much, much lower clawback rates.

Also, the total budget is a poor basis to compare by. Discretionary spending is a much better basis. Mandatory spending either can't be cut by your specifications (healthcare, interest), or would increase the costs of the income program in a way we can't model (Social Security).

I ran some real life proposals that would eliminate poverty through my model and got anywhere from $370 billion to well over $1 trillion. That's between 33% of discretionary spending to over 100%.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 10, 2016, 10:16:52 AM
I'll just say that calling it a "tax" in this context is highly disingenuous.

Of course my preferred solution would be a much more expansive minimum income with no clawbacks whatsoever, to be funded through hyper-progressive income taxes, but I'd settle for a more restrictive proposal that still does a lot of good if it's more politically feasible.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: DC Al Fine on September 10, 2016, 10:28:34 AM
I'll just say that calling it a "tax" in this context is highly disingenuous.

'Implied tax rate' then, if you want me to use proper accounting terms. I'm describing how many cents on the next dollar one gets to keep.

Terminology isn't really relevant to my point though. If you think the first dollar of income should have a lower net benefit than the millionth dollar, you should have your socialist card revoked.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on September 10, 2016, 04:42:58 PM
We already have a growing underclass of people who go through much or all of their adult lives without ever finding stable employment. I don't really understand the objection, because they're already here whether you see them or not.

Well, the objection is that something should be done to get them out of it, should it not? There are many ideas out there that would, at least, try doing it.

What are they, though, and where is the political will to implement them - ideally before we elect more Berlusconi's, more Trumps, more Le Pens, more Orbans?

One other policy that has been mentioned is the EITC. But the scope of something like the EITC is more limited, and it has similar effects on disincentiving work for certain people (or, just as likely, encouraging them to leave more income unreported - which IMO is an under-discussed aspect of declining prime age workforce participation, although maybe it's more studied than I realize), not to mention making it more difficult for the typical person to calculate whether additional work is really worth their while.

You seem to have something different in mind, though. Well, what is it? Let them eat charter schools? Let them eat four-year degrees that lead only to debt, contempt, and underemployment? Maybe yet another half-hearted effort to push the most unskilled, unfocused, and unprepared students into trade schools that they are unlikely to ever finish? Or perhaps yet another healthcare initiative that makes the US healthcare sector into an even more expansive haven for educated Americans who want stable jobs with middle class compensation and can't get then elsewhere? (Let's put a "care manager" in every practice. Let's hire another few grants people at the hospital, every practice needs a team of experts to set up its EHR, etc.)

I agree that the scope of the EITC is inherently limited because it, as a matter of fact, cannot aid those who have been pushed out the labor market and is a fairly useless policy for single mothers because no amount of extra income can change the economics of childcare. However, it's "low hanging fruit" and it ought to be dramatically expanded for childless single earners who are below the poverty line.

Irritating platitudes about "handups not handouts" aside, the EITC is a remarkable policy option.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: crazy jimmie on September 13, 2016, 09:36:30 PM
It may be necessary with the advancement of technology.

Bullocks. Technology has nothing to do with it. The luddite argument is no truer today than 200 years back.

Oh sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I have been busy, and unlike AAD, Atlas does not notify you of quotes.

I hardly believe that technology will destroy all jobs. My argument is more on the basis that it created a large difference between the lower and upper classes. New jobs will be created for sure, and some jobs, especially in customer service, should not be automated. That is even if they can be automated. Ever had to deal with automated voice system on the phone? Yea, it sucks.

A universal basic income may need to be explored if the gap between upper and lower classes widen, and if unemployment goes up a bit due to technology. But technology will never destroy jobs at the rate that many Luddite's believe.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Buffalo Bill on September 14, 2016, 06:07:09 PM
much simpler solutions that wouldn't benefit Democrat politicians as much


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: nicholas.slaydon on September 16, 2016, 04:49:45 PM
Fantastic Idea that skips over government bureaucracy and guarantee's everybody has a decent standard of living.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 17, 2016, 12:05:26 PM
Even though the Luddite position turned out to be misguided in the medium-to-long term, in the immediate term the Industrial Revolution did in fact ruin a lot of people's livelihoods and a lot of communities' local and regional economies. I don't think it's acceptable to leave such people in our own time twisting in the wind just because the labor market will eventually correct itself. (Not that I think ag is suggesting that, but a lot of people with his general outlook do, at least implicitly.)

Relevant. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do7epBepl8U)


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Thunderbird is the word on September 17, 2016, 05:07:41 PM
Freedom policy and a necessity if as automation becomes increasingly widespread and inevitable we want to retain any kind of stable global economy. There's a lot of other benefits also, it would be great for music and the arts as well.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Potus on September 18, 2016, 02:56:41 PM
For what it's worth, the Department of Health and Human Services and Social Security Administration combined spend $16,800 per household in 2016 terms. That would be a pretty substantial minimum income while leaving programs for survival like unemployment and food stamps intact. Albeit, I'd reform all spending involved pretty significantly.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 18, 2016, 09:10:15 PM
I oppose it.

Here's why.  I support doing more to lift to the quality of life for those struggling and especially those on daily direct income support. It could work in other societies, as Nix correctly highlighted, where the expectation and burden (not burden in a negative sense) of the provision of  education and health is on the state, through general revenue and higher taxation. The reason why I think it's dangerous for the left in the United States and countries, even like Australia, Canada and the UK to support this is that its purpose is not to place more economic power into the hands of the poorest, but shift the economic weight of the welfare state off the Government. Not only is it designed to reduce the expenditure on public health and education, let alone direct income support, but an excuse to shred the bureaucracy and shift more and more people, because lets be honest the UBI in the United States would be VERY basic, toward private charity because they won't be able to cover the costs of the services they'd now be losing.

Remember, this is not an alternative to employment or a real living income.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Gustaf on September 19, 2016, 05:10:48 AM
I am yet to encounter a construction of UBI that does not either a) condemn some poor people to basically starve or b) bankrupts the budget in a way that is totally unsustainable to finance even with higher taxes. Most cases I've seen for it have seen confused to me.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Santander on September 19, 2016, 05:35:19 AM
I am yet to encounter a construction of UBI that does not either a) condemn some poor people to basically starve or b) bankrupts the budget in a way that is totally unsustainable to finance even with higher taxes. Most cases I've seen for it have seen confused to me.
They could, you know, get a job.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Incomea
Post by: crazy jimmie on September 19, 2016, 01:43:22 PM
I am yet to encounter a construction of UBI that does not either a) condemn some poor people to basically starve or b) bankrupts the budget in a way that is totally unsustainable to finance even with higher taxes. Most cases I've seen for it have seen confused to me.
They could, you know, get a job.

Looks as though we have a once-in-a-generation policy genius over here. Astounding insight!

"Get a job" is a term that is easy for conservatives to use and sounds logical. Yes, I agree most persons should get a job. However, during economic downtowns, they may not exist. Also, lets be honest, so people just are not suited to work or lack the education to work in a position that is a "fit" for them.

Let's say someone has aspergers or is socially awkward, but was not able to attend college for whatever reason. Most of the lower skill jobs require strong people skills, which people with aspergers do not have. I am applying this to any of the reasons that said person could not attend college (i.e. finances, poor grades, other disabilities, etc).


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Incomea
Post by: Santander on September 19, 2016, 03:04:41 PM
Let's say someone has aspergers or is socially awkward, but was not able to attend college for whatever reason. Most of the lower skill jobs require strong people skills, which people with aspergers do not have. I am applying this to any of the reasons that said person could not attend college (i.e. finances, poor grades, other disabilities, etc).
I didn't know you needed strong social skills to work in a factory or construction site.

Obviously, if someone has a debilitating disability, "get a job" is not an appropriate answer. But minor mental or physical disabilities do not prevent someone from working. By the way, I don't believe in telling everyone to get a job - working is a lifestyle choice and we should treat it as such. But if you have the ability to work and do not, you should bear the consequences of your lifestyle choice if you don't have other sources of income.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 19, 2016, 03:18:45 PM
I didn't know you needed strong social skills to work in a factory or construction site.

You didn't?


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: muon2 on September 23, 2016, 07:41:47 AM
To Gustaf's post, if the entire US federal government shut down and used all of its revenue to create a UBI it wouldn't be much. $3.25 trillion divided by 319 million people is $10,188/year. That corresponds to a full-time wage of about $5.00/hour, so that is consistent with Gustaf's claim of starvation wages.

By comparison the maximum social security benefit at age 65 is $29,424/year almost three times as much. In other words the US would have to triple its tax income to provide a UBI equal to social security and it would still be shut down and provide no services. Tripling the rates wouldn't work since the top bracket is already 39.6% and that would result in tax rates greater than 100%. So arguably this matches Gustaf's other claim that the alternative would bankrupt the budget and be unsustainable even with higher taxes.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: ‼realJohnEwards‼ on September 25, 2016, 11:35:44 AM
FP in theory, but, just like Communism, HP in practice.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 25, 2016, 11:38:38 AM
FP in theory, but, just like Communism, HP in practice.

makes u think


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Gustaf on September 26, 2016, 03:39:57 AM
I am yet to encounter a construction of UBI that does not either a) condemn some poor people to basically starve or b) bankrupts the budget in a way that is totally unsustainable to finance even with higher taxes. Most cases I've seen for it have seen confused to me.
They could, you know, get a job.

Don't be an idiot.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: King on October 07, 2016, 10:03:49 AM
I prefer graduated negative income tax.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: RI on October 14, 2016, 01:58:25 PM
I prefer graduated negative income tax.

This.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: parochial boy on October 14, 2016, 05:28:12 PM
I am yet to encounter a construction of UBI that does not either a) condemn some poor people to basically starve or b) bankrupts the budget in a way that is totally unsustainable to finance even with higher taxes. Most cases I've seen for it have seen confused to me.
From my understanding, it's contested, but there is no conclusive evidence that, when applied, UBI does lead to people choosing not to work. Some correlates have been noted with a reduction in number of hours worked, but largely among new mothers and teenagers; so you could argue that was a good thing

Also, the argument also posits that UBI would not disincentivise work as getting a job would not mean losing means tested benefits as happens in the traditional welfare system. Which could be an incentive for people to find jobs - they get more money.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: DC Al Fine on October 15, 2016, 07:22:15 AM
I am yet to encounter a construction of UBI that does not either a) condemn some poor people to basically starve or b) bankrupts the budget in a way that is totally unsustainable to finance even with higher taxes. Most cases I've seen for it have seen confused to me.
From my understanding, it's contested, but there is no conclusive evidence that, when applied, UBI does lead to people choosing not to work. Some correlates have been noted with a reduction in number of hours worked, but largely among new mothers and teenagers; so you could argue that was a good thing

That's not the issue though. Women becoming stay at home moms and teenagers staying in school are small beer compared to the sheer cost of the system overall.

In order for a minimum income to work, it needs to be high enough to keep the poor comfortable, have reasonable clawbacks to maintain economic mobility, and be cheap enough that it can be reasonably achieved through taxation without crowding out the rest of government spending. The problem is that government can only choose two of those things in a universal system.

If the income floor is reasonable, and clawbacks modest, the cost will be high enough to crowd out everything else, even in a high tax country. If costs are controlled and clawbacks modest, then the poor are condemned to starve. If costs are controlled and the income floor is good, then clawbacks must be so high that they prevent the poor from ever moving out of poverty.

Given this paradox, I think it is more appropriate to limit UBI to vulnerable groups to keep the system effective and inexpensive.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 15, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
I am yet to encounter a construction of UBI that does not either a) condemn some poor people to basically starve or b) bankrupts the budget in a way that is totally unsustainable to finance even with higher taxes. Most cases I've seen for it have seen confused to me.
From my understanding, it's contested, but there is no conclusive evidence that, when applied, UBI does lead to people choosing not to work. Some correlates have been noted with a reduction in number of hours worked, but largely among new mothers and teenagers; so you could argue that was a good thing

That's not the issue though. Women becoming stay at home moms and teenagers staying in school are small beer compared to the sheer cost of the system overall.

In order for a minimum income to work, it needs to be high enough to keep the poor comfortable, have reasonable clawbacks to maintain economic mobility, and be cheap enough that it can be reasonably achieved through taxation without crowding out the rest of government spending. The problem is that government can only choose two of those things in a universal system.

If the income floor is reasonable, and clawbacks modest, the cost will be high enough to crowd out everything else, even in a high tax country. If costs are controlled and clawbacks modest, then the poor are condemned to starve. If costs are controlled and the income floor is good, then clawbacks must be so high that they prevent the poor from ever moving out of poverty.

Given this paradox, I think it is more appropriate to limit UBI to vulnerable groups to keep the system effective and inexpensive.

     I was just thinking about this, and guesstimating numbers was pretty stunning. A truly universal system that paid a living stipend would be enormously expensive.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: parochial boy on October 15, 2016, 03:21:51 PM
From what I remember of the Swiss Basic Income referendum, although there wasn't any explicit level of pay out being put forward, the cost of paying every adult CHF 2500 ($2500) and every child CHF 625 ($625) a month would have come to about CHF 210 billion, or around 33% of GDP.

Now obviously this is at the generous end of the levels of UBI being put forward, and there are basically two ways of looking at it.

The first is the generous option, where you are effectively looking at replacing the classic welfare state with UBI, so a pay out cost that is at least partially funded by the reduction in pensions, unemployment benefits and the like, which, especially pensions can already cost 20-30% of GDP. Of course, a UBI would still involve tax hikes (not really a problem for those of us who generally think redistribution is a good idea), but in a lot of cases, the idea would be to increase taxes such that, for a good number of people, the UBI payment is effectively cancelled out by the increase in taxes.

With a less generous UBI payment, if you were keeping the traditional welfare state largely intact (perhaps replacing a portion of unemployment benefit with UBI payments), this still wouldn't "condemn" people to starve, and they would still have the incentive to return to work, as they wouldn't lose their full unemployment benefit, as is the case under a traditional mode.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 18, 2016, 05:17:59 PM
I tend to agree with Gustaf here. This is the sort of idea that is very attractive to intellectuals but which has daunting and dangerous practical problems.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 18, 2016, 05:20:52 PM
I mean social policy is difficult and economists (of whatever hue) tend not to grasp this.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: ag on October 18, 2016, 07:04:23 PM
I mean social policy is difficult and economists (of whatever hue) tend not to grasp this.

Considering how many economists spend most of their time thinking about how difficult it is, I find your statement somewhat perplexing. I mean, if economists did not grasp the difficulty of social policy, why would we still have any research in economics? Why would there be econ departments at universities?


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on October 19, 2016, 04:35:53 AM
I mean social policy is difficult and economists (of whatever hue) tend not to grasp this.

Considering how many economists spend most of their time thinking about how difficult it is, I find your statement somewhat perplexing. I mean, if economists did not grasp the difficulty of social policy, why would we still have any research in economics? Why would there be econ departments at universities?

Because economics isn't primarily, or even secondarily, a discipline that studies "social policy"? Generally speaking, that seems to be the domain of "policy theorists" at places like the JFK School of Government at Harvard and probably applies more to sociologists or political scientists than economists...

I'm not an expert. In fact, I am very stupid and ignorant also. However, I have also read enough to recognize the different approaches that each academic discipline takes to understand social problems and social policy. Economics, in particular, lends itself to parsimonious, generalizable explanations that fit into the framework of models. This is all well and good: it is the strength of economics as a discipline, one that has made it an "imperial" discipline because its methodology is inherently superior as an applied social science. However, it also lends itself to hand-wavy explanations that ignore the particular difficulties of carrying out social policy among particular communities that might have different practices or the strange nature of bureaucracies etc.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Gustaf on October 19, 2016, 05:16:25 AM
I mean social policy is difficult and economists (of whatever hue) tend not to grasp this.

Considering how many economists spend most of their time thinking about how difficult it is, I find your statement somewhat perplexing. I mean, if economists did not grasp the difficulty of social policy, why would we still have any research in economics? Why would there be econ departments at universities?

Because economics isn't primarily, or even secondarily, a discipline that studies "social policy"? Generally speaking, that seems to be the domain of "policy theorists" at places like the JFK School of Government at Harvard and probably applies more to sociologists or political scientists than economists...

I'm not an expert. In fact, I am very stupid and ignorant also. However, I have also read enough to recognize the different approaches that each academic discipline takes to understand social problems and social policy. Economics, in particular, lends itself to parsimonious, generalizable explanations that fit into the framework of models. This is all well and good: it is the strength of economics as a discipline, one that has made it an "imperial" discipline because its methodology is inherently superior as an applied social science. However, it also lends itself to hand-wavy explanations that ignore the particular difficulties of carrying out social policy among particular communities that might have different practices or the strange nature of bureaucracies etc.

I see what you're going for here, but I think that critique is more applicable to a branch (admittedly perhaps the dominant branch in economics). If you look at for example the work of Ellinor Ostrom, the Nobel laureate in Economics from a few years back, she deals with these sort of things. You can also look at institutional economists like Acemoglu and Robinson for instance.

And I think some economists would on the contrary find it a little hand-wavy when people explain outcomes with "culture" and similar things. ;)


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Person Man on October 22, 2016, 08:02:21 AM
In theory great! How, though? If we want to do 1500 a month per capita, that's like 30% our GDP.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Ban my account ffs! on October 23, 2016, 05:28:03 PM
In theory great! How, though? If we want to do 1500 a month per capita, that's like 30% our GDP.
It would have to be extremely well planned and slowly implemented over a decade or so, so that the economy could adjust.  It would require a massive effort with cooperation from all parties.

I'd support ending cash welfare programs (non medical) and lowering the minimum wage.  Foodstamps could become purely supplemental...maybe more like wic to ensure the poor have access to fresh foods (produce, meat, dairy).

How does one incentivize work with a guaranteed income?  Offer lump sum bonuses for those working at least 10/20/30 hours per week.  Encourage small scale entrepreneurship among the poor.  Offer free training programs and assign "process facilitators" one on one to people to guide them through regulations and gov paperwork for starting businesses.  Set up public market spaces...

Lots of ideas.  But it wouldn't be easy or clean.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Skill and Chance on April 01, 2017, 11:29:46 PM
Unqualified opposition unless someone is severely disabled, attending school full time, or a primary caregiver raising children.  Instead, have a permanent federal WPA-like program that will unconditionally hire someone who has exhausted their unemployment benefits onto various infrastructure projects for at least 1/3rd of the median income.  Human psychology requires a goal-oriented activity equivalent to full time work over the long run to maintain mental health. 


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Devout Centrist on April 03, 2017, 01:44:48 PM
I prefer graduated negative income tax.
I as well.

Here's a simple, somewhat flawed calculator for an NIT: https://dqydj.com/scripts/fullhtml/base_2015_negativeincometax.html


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Shadows on April 14, 2017, 04:43:34 AM
I am opposed to this idea. I think this idea should be debate rationally when robots & automation takes away most of the jobs with huge unemployment impossible to rectify, where UBI is necessary to even sustain society & law n order or to curtail huge poverty. We are yet to see how automation plays out, maybe it will create more tech jobs than anticipated similar to when Computers & other tech inventions came.

If that point every comes, we probably to have seriously debate UBI, not now with unemployment less than 5%. The target here is to increase participation in the labor market & ofcourse to raise wages for the bottom half of the population which is struggling in a system where the gains go to the top few. The situation to discuss or implement UBI is not now !


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Meclazine for Israel on April 16, 2017, 08:30:30 AM
The one issue is the word Universal.

Each state would apply there own levels, if any.

The USA is state based, so getting a social security system up and running with the word "Universal" is a real challenge.

My two cents is to make the system self-motivating.

Someone dod mention a Brazilian example that encouraged business development.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: SoLongAtlas on April 18, 2017, 08:35:33 AM
Ok with it, esp when automation puts scores out of work straining unemployment, but would favor UBI taking the place of unemployment and mandatory retraining/school/proof of applications after a period of time. UBI should not be a blank check for every citizen but a sort of unemployment-plus program.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: parochial boy on April 21, 2017, 10:49:46 AM
Something proposed by Yanis Varoufakis is the idea of a "Universal Basic Dividend" (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/basic-income-funded-by-capital-income-by-yanis-varoufakis-2016-10); whereby, when companies publically list themselves, a portion of the share capital would be transferred into public ownership, and the dividends used to pay a universal income to everybody.

The theory is that, wealth is created collectively (and often directly through state subsidies, innovations and the like), and therefore a portion of the economy should be owned collectively and the resulting wealth divided between everyone.

It would also bridge the gap between automation and every body losing their jobs. People who currently stand to lose from automation would suddenly have something to gain from it, as higher corporate profits would be directly linked to the universal dividend.

Seems like a pretty good idea to me, although I await for someone to tell me why I'm an idiot and I don't understand.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: ApatheticAustrian on April 21, 2017, 12:30:27 PM
necessary in any way at some point.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Hydera on April 22, 2017, 12:45:57 PM
FP but only at $500-2000 a month.

Anything more is excessive and thats considering so many basic income supporters want $5000 which is way too much.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: muon2 on April 22, 2017, 05:42:18 PM
FP but only at $500-2000 a month.

Anything more is excessive and thats considering so many basic income supporters want $5000 which is way too much.

Are there serious supporters that want individual basic income at $5K/mo? The average individual income in the US in 2015 was about $3700/mo so that means if all income were redistributed equally it would be $1300/mo short - ie there isn't enough income to reach that goal even in the most extreme scenario.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: President Johnson on April 23, 2017, 04:05:16 AM
I'm against it.

(Without having read to entire discussion):
There is just no incentive to learn a good job and work. Our system depends on people to work, study and archive larger goals. Work should be rewarded. Let alone that a basic income is very expensive. You could argue that all other transfer services could/would be ended with a basic income, but what's it worth then? Transfer services should only be paid to those who are really needy and on a temporary basis (except retirees or someone who can't work for health reasons).


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Gustaf on April 23, 2017, 08:40:29 AM
Something proposed by Yanis Varoufakis is the idea of a "Universal Basic Dividend" (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/basic-income-funded-by-capital-income-by-yanis-varoufakis-2016-10); whereby, when companies publically list themselves, a portion of the share capital would be transferred into public ownership, and the dividends used to pay a universal income to everybody.

The theory is that, wealth is created collectively (and often directly through state subsidies, innovations and the like), and therefore a portion of the economy should be owned collectively and the resulting wealth divided between everyone.

It would also bridge the gap between automation and every body losing their jobs. People who currently stand to lose from automation would suddenly have something to gain from it, as higher corporate profits would be directly linked to the universal dividend.

Seems like a pretty good idea to me, although I await for someone to tell me why I'm an idiot and I don't understand.

I don't think it's obviously idiotic, but I'd see two issues. One is that this is already somewhat true - people own a lot of stock through pension funds in the status quo, but are often not very aware of that fact. Related to that, there is a criticism that all that passive ownership leads to less owner-control of managers and that this is a source of a lot of the problems with large corporations. Specifically things like taking on too much risk and CEOs getting way too high compensations.

The second thing is that if this is significant it essentially means that you put a tax on publicly listing your company. That'd presumably lead to people avoiding to do that. This can be problematic on its own and more generally this would lower returns to building successful companies which would slow growth.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Dmitri Covasku on April 24, 2017, 06:43:10 PM
A basic income can work in the form of a NIT in my opinion.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: LabourJersey on May 23, 2017, 12:20:52 PM
I think a basic income is going to be necessary for a lot of people in the future, but I think that a universal one would not be popular at the point it would be most necessary. Automation is going to cause greater equality, but a universal policy by its very nature is going to give "the billy-on-aires" an extra $25k or whatever it works out to. People aren't going to be happy with that.

The best system would probably a really generous negative income tax that starts are some very high threshold, adjusted for the cost of living of each county/metro area. Something like $75,000 a year pp would be more politically popular.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: angus on May 31, 2017, 08:02:02 PM
horrible idea, on many levels.

I prefer a situation in which if someone wants Tea, Earl Grey, then he walks over to the food replicator and orders it and it appears.  No money changes hands, no tips are expected.  This is the result of a very advanced economy and it will only come about with technological efficiency and motivation.  Government policies which guarantee money in one's pockets not only do not facilitate that end, but they work against it in at least two ways:  they propagate the inherent value of the barter system and they provide without motivation or inspiration for the betterment of mankind.

Maybe I'm a closet socialist.  I don't think I am, but I might be.  Or maybe I'm an unabashed objectivist.  I don't think I am, but I might be.  But the idea of a legally-guaranteed universal basic income would, or at least should, offend both of those groups, precisely because the idea of providing free to the great unwashed masses the crutches of capitalism does not seem to be a good way to advance the economy.



Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Blue3 on May 31, 2017, 09:14:55 PM
This is a very good video, only 5 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkyv34eGX7A&feature=youtu.be


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: Kingpoleon on June 03, 2017, 06:19:03 PM
Mixed, but it's better than the current system. I will vote for Freedom Policy.


Title: Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income
Post by: vanguard96 on June 14, 2017, 04:15:21 PM
[quote}
In conjunction with a massive reduction in the welfare state, support. Otherwise, no.
[/quote]

Agree, pretty much all of the free market advocates of UBI or some other policy like it (Friedman, Charles Murray, and F.A. Hayek) have said it would only work if 'all' other systems of welfare were eliminated. The rest is left to public charity - and it would be not for every single person but applied as a negative income tax. It would be hard to manage and if the amount was too high it would be a major disincentive to work.

I think most progressives, social Democrats, and other modern 'liberals', who typically are fearful of automation and are altruists through the power and kindness of the state want a more robust version of UBI than what Friedman envisioned or what Murray discusses now when not getting heckled for the Bell Curve book.

If there was no Medicaid/Medicare/ACA, no SocSec, no food stamps, no housing assistance, no welfare, but they still had to have something maybe this is OK. But, given how strongly the power players are stuck to these benefit structures with the pull peddlers happy with the status quo insurance companies and large corporations, lobbyists, lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians, etc. and how hard its been to make inroads in dismantling the power and involvement of the state in our lives I think the UBI would be a bad idea.