Opinion of Universal Basic Income

[Potus]

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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Santander]

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.

[jamestroll]

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).

[Santander]

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.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I didn't know you needed strong social skills to work in a factory or construction site.

You didn't?

[muon2]

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.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

FP in theory, but, just like Communism, HP in practice.

[Antonio the Sixth]

FP in theory, but, just like Communism, HP in practice.

makes u think

[Gustaf]

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.

[King]

I prefer graduated negative income tax.

[RI]

I prefer graduated negative income tax.

This.

[parochial boy]

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.

[DC Al Fine]

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.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

[parochial boy]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I mean social policy is difficult and economists (of whatever hue) tend not to grasp this.

[ag]

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?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Person Man]

In theory great! How, though? If we want to do 1500 a month per capita, that's like 30% our GDP.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[Skill and Chance]

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.