Universal Basic Income

11101 said:
It could not work the way you suggest though or there would be zero incentive to work. We need more representative numbers to make the figures work, so let's add a middle class of 9 more kids and bump their original figures up a bit. So you have 3 poor kids with 0(+5p), 12 middle class kids with 10(+5p), 3 rich kids with 20(+5p). You need to raise 90p to pay all 18 kids 5p UBI. You tax the 3 rich kids 10p each, and the 12 middle kids 5p. The poor now have 5p, the middle have 10p, the rich have 15p.

The sweets have now inflated to cost 10p. The poor kids still cant afford them.
Click to expand...

These types of reductive analogies are so disconnected from reality that they are useless.

Just the two major flaws here, there is no support that there "would be zero incentive to work." That really makes no sense. Andrew Yang's UBI proposal was $1000 a month or $12K/year. In California a minimum wage worker will make about $29K/ year. A UBI would almost have no effect on the majority of people's "incentive to work." And for a minority where a UBI might remove an incentive to work, so what? If a 20-year-old starving artist wants to live off a UBI so they can focus on their art then good for them. If someone wants to live off UBI instead of working as a cashier for McDonalds in Rural Town, Middle America while they go to college, then good for them. If a senior citizen would prefer to live off UBI and Social Security to survive rather than working as a greeter at Wal-Mart, then right the feck on. Overall, I'd say that's going to be a net positive for society in just about every possible way without much negative. Again, the majority of people don't live in any circumstance where 12K is going to disincentivize anything. What it would really do in reality, is allow people to pay off debts like student loans or credit card debt accumulated in hard times or medical bills (overall good for the economy) or allow some people to have more discretionary income to support businesses (also a good thing).

The second flaw is obvious. You just made up the arbitrarily increased inflation in your example. There is no inherent economic factor that would automatically lead to inflation with a UBI.

Now personally, I'm still not convinced UBI is better than other forms of increased social welfare but it deserves more intense experimentation and consideration and should not just be dismissed with really poor 1880s-1920s laissez-faire analogies.
 
largelyworried said:
This is not an argument for UBI, it’s an argument for a strong social security system. There are many real and hypothetical systems out there that make sure people have enough money to live on, it’s not a feature unique to UBI.
Click to expand...
I might be wrong, but in my understanding, the main draw of UBI really is that it's a simpler and more all-encompassing way to run a welfare system. And welfare systems serve to make sure everyone can live a decent life (even if most systems fail at that in various ways). So I don't see the issue in your post here.
 
Cheimoon said:
I might be wrong, but in my understanding, the main draw of UBI really is that it's a simpler and more all-encompassing way to run a welfare system. And welfare systems serve to make sure everyone can live a decent life (even if most systems fail at that in various ways). So I don't see the issue in your post here.
Click to expand...

My point is that I think there are better benefirs systems than UBI
 
Cheimoon said:
But then the example makes no sense. First, most people make more than what UBI would offer. Second, if that weren't true, if people would quit work, employers with people in that wage group would be short of personnel and would start offering higher wages in order to remain in operation (as @Pexbo said). And third, if that weren'tr true either, the point remains that most people don't like being idle (pre-pension, anyway), and wouldn't generally choose to lounge at home doing nothing.

So what's the value of the example?
Click to expand...

:lol: it's an example about kids buying sweets to illustrate inflation, its not supposed to be a fully costed UBI.
 
largelyworried said:
My point is that I think there are better benefirs systems than UBI
Click to expand...
Well, I'd be happy with whatever system improves how things are done currently. :)
11101 said:
:lol: it's an example about kids buying sweets to illustrate inflation, its not supposed to be a fully costed UBI.
Click to expand...
Well, I like sweets and would hate for them to get very expensive - but the point is that the example is so divorced from reality that it has no value, as others have also argued.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Now personally, I'm still not convinced UBI is better than other forms of increased social welfare but it deserves more intense experimentation and consideration and should not just be dismissed with really poor 1880s-1920s laissez-faire analogies.
Click to expand...

It's a fundamentally flawed concept, even in theory.

+ It's supposed to replace existing benefits, not supplement them. Giving a $12k and taking away existing benefits is better? Probably not. Or at least debatable. In my personal opinion, this is a pittance and needs to be more. (budget considerations ignored).

+ Targeted at wrong audience. 15% of people in US are below poverty and less than 25% receive benefits (going by basic google here). Rather than a program to help these specially, UBI makes then a minor part of equation.

It's just a perfect politically advantageous concept that fails basic practical needs.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
It's a fundamentally flawed concept, even in theory.

+ It's supposed to replace existing benefits, not supplement them. Giving a $12k and taking away existing benefits is better? Probably not. Or at least debatable. In my personal opinion, this is a pittance and needs to be more. (budget considerations ignored).

+ Targeted at wrong audience. 15% of people in US are below poverty and less than 25% receive benefits (going by basic google here). Rather than a program to help these specially, UBI makes then a minor part of equation.

It's just a perfect politically advantageous concept that fails basic practical needs.
Click to expand...

It is targeted at everyone, that is the whole point. Target it just at people who are currently receive (or should receive) unemployed or other benefits and it is just more means based welfare, which is what we are trying to get away from.
 
Wibble said:
It is targeted at everyone, that is the whole point. Target it just at people who are currently receive (or should receive) unemployed or other benefits and it is just more means based welfare, which is what we are trying to get away from.
Click to expand...

Making everyone a target rather than just those it needs to is making things worse, not better. It dilutes the area that actually needs to be fixed. That's why I say it's flawed even in concept.
 
The hard bit isn't the theory but the transition and funding of the transition as people are so easily sucked into right wing wet dreams of poor people leaching of "us".

Murdoch et al. will sell it as a tax rise and enough idiots will vote for Trump/BoJo/#scottyfrommarketing to kill it dead. Same thing with mitigating global warming. We are too stupid to survive as a species.
 
Wibble said:
The hard bit isn't the theory but the transition and funding of the transition as people are so easily sucked into right wing wet dreams of poor people leaching of "us".

Murdoch et al. will sell it as a tax rise and enough idiots will vote for Trump/BoJo/#scottyfrommarketing to kill it dead. Same thing with mitigating global warming. We are too stupid to survive as a species.
Click to expand...
the way i see it, the same issue that we see today with how benefits work will become a problem with ubi. conservatives will impose waay too many requirements or conditions for people to avail ubi.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
It should be targeted at those who need it.

Making everyone a target rather than just those it needs to is making things worse, not better. That's why I say it's flawed even in concept.
Click to expand...

If you target something at just those in poverty now then that is just more means based welfare which is a bit of a mess any way you look at it.

IA true UBI would make things hugely better and remove a massive barrier to social and economic welfare. Making health, dentistry and education free again would be an even better improvement and hugely increasing the stock of low cost/social housing would be another massive benefit to most countries. The saving due to not having to means test UBI would be huge and it would boost the economy. As we saw with the funding many countries provided to people during covid which wasn't means tested in the main was that spending increased boosting the economy.

The hard thing would be the sell as the top end of town would prefer enriching themselves at our expense as is currently happening (and gathering pace). Part of the hardship of the sell is that such a fundamental change would probably be initially expensive which would give the right soundbite bullshit to get votes.
 
entropy said:
the way i see it, the same issue that we see today with how benefits work will become a problem with ubi. conservatives will impose waay too many requirements or conditions for people to avail ubi.
Click to expand...

Probably but then it wouldn't be a UBI.
 
entropy said:
the clue is in the name, universal basic income.
Click to expand...
Suggest you read the rest of the post.

Wibble said:
The hard bit isn't the theory but the transition and funding of the transition as people are so easily sucked into right wing wet dreams of poor people leaching of "us".

Murdoch et al. will sell it as a tax rise and enough idiots will vote for Trump/BoJo/#scottyfrommarketing to kill it dead. Same thing with mitigating global warming. We are too stupid to survive as a species.
Click to expand...

It'd be wrong to brush that off, because that's be the case. Murdoch and the rich snobs won't be affected by it, but middle class will.

Tax the rich and feed the poor is easy to say, but rarely works that way. Current Ultra Rich have all the benefits and I'd be interested in a proposal of having them fund this without impacting middle class.
 
Wibble said:
If you target something at just those in poverty now then that is just more means based welfare which is a bit of a mess any way you look at it.

IA true UBI would make things hugely better and remove a massive barrier to social and economic welfare. Making health, dentistry and education free again would be an even better improvement and hugely increasing the stock of low cost/social housing would be another massive benefit to most countries.
Click to expand...

Welfare by definition should apply to those who need it. Welfare for all doesn't really make any kind of practical sense.

As to your second paragraph, I totally agree. Health (incl. Dentistry) and Education should be free or at least more accessible to all. The current way of doing things sucks.

I'd support investing more money into social welfare (than economic) and provide better healthcare and education as the cascading effects are huge. Wipe out all student loans and make premium education accessible. Healthcare should be far far cheaper (maybe 10% or less of current) and should be accessible to all.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Suggest you read the rest of the post.
Click to expand...
I did. but the points you mention aren't really proof of it being a flawed concept like you claim it is. regarding your first point - the issue is the amount. which i agree with. the amount should be higher. your second point - ubi is different from the usual welfare. hence why the targeted audience is different and much larger. stop expecting it to be similar to the current benefits system. as far as your third point goes, it is mostly rhetorical.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Welfare by definition should apply to those who need it. Welfare for all doesn't really make any kind of practical sense.
Click to expand...

Welfare wouldn't exist under UBI or only in very special circumstances (some disability benefits might need to remain for e.g.) as the vast majority of welfare, and pensions would disappear. The practical sense is that you no longer need huge number of highly paid people to means test the majority of payments as it is income and not welfare. And the huge benefits in terms of social and economic mobility are a very worthy goals in of itself.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Suggest you read the rest of the post.



It'd be wrong to brush that off, because that's be the case. Murdoch and the rich snobs won't be affected by it, but middle class will.

Tax the rich and feed the poor is easy to say, but rarely works that way. Current Ultra Rich have all the benefits and I'd be interested in a proposal of having them fund this without impacting middle class.
Click to expand...

I don't brush it off. I just know that Murdoch and his ilk will try to block it just as they try to block anything that will reduce the concentration of wealth to the 1%.

As for taxing the rich. Well it wouldn't be hard if we actually tried. Or at least not that hard to vastly improve things. Laws addressing corporate offshore bullshit to avoid tax would be a good start.
 
Wibble said:
Welfare wouldn't exist under UBI or only in very special circumstances (some disability benefits might need to remain for e.g.) as the vast majority of welfare, and pensions would disappear.
Click to expand...

entropy said:
ubi is different from the usual welfare
Click to expand...

That's why I conceptually support welfare over UBI. The current way of welfare is crap and needs updates, but....imo it'd be better to fix welfare than replace it with UBI.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
That's why I conceptually support welfare over UBI. The current way of welfare is crap and needs updates, but....imo it'd be better to fix welfare than replace it with UBI.
Click to expand...

I think the way to fix welfare is to do away with it with a UBI. Otherwise it will either never work e.g. US or work very badly in the vast majority of countries.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
That's why I conceptually support welfare over UBI. The current way of welfare is crap and needs updates, but....imo it'd be better to fix welfare than replace it with UBI.
Click to expand...
UBI would fix two things, firstly for the many that aren't covered by welfare, that fall between the cracks, those that are very willing to work and give it everything they've got but aren't physically or mentally capable of working 40 hours a week, and secondly those that play the system, because they would no longer be gaining anything that everyone else isn't getting anyway.
 
this would be amazing for people who want to start a business but don't have the safety net for it.. or people who have a passion for something that doesn't make them enough money to live

I can see all sorts of benefits really, but I can't see anyone winning an election running on this platform for a good while

we'd need a drastic shift in society for enough people to vote for it (eg mass unemployment due to automation)
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
It's a fundamentally flawed concept, even in theory.

+ It's supposed to replace existing benefits, not supplement them. Giving a $12k and taking away existing benefits is better? Probably not. Or at least debatable. In my personal opinion, this is a pittance and needs to be more. (budget considerations ignored).

+ Targeted at wrong audience. 15% of people in US are below poverty and less than 25% receive benefits (going by basic google here). Rather than a program to help these specially, UBI makes then a minor part of equation.

It's just a perfect politically advantageous concept that fails basic practical needs.
Click to expand...

You can't really use the poverty line as the distinction between those that truly need help and people who are "fine". There is a huge chunk of people that might not be under the poverty line but absolutely need more help than what is available in thecurrent stripped-down neo-liberal system. Even going by "people who receive benefits" isn't really broad enough as Clinton and the Republicans have stripped a lot of people who should receive them off benefits. It's probably closer 50-60% that really need increased welfare.
 
Tarrou said:
this would be amazing for people who want to start a business but don't have the safety net for it.. or people who have a passion for something that doesn't make them enough money to live

I can see all sorts of benefits really, but I can't see anyone winning an election running on this platform for a good while

we'd need a drastic shift in society for enough people to vote for it (eg mass unemployment due to automation)
Click to expand...

There's an interesting argument for risk sharing to be made (and has been in other topics).

Person X dislikes risk, just as everyone else. At the same time, person X has a good idea that could make him rich but his innovation spills over to person Y. But person X doesn't care about person Y, so it doesn't enter into his calculation of whether he ought to take the risk.

If innovation have quantitatively relevant positive externalities, encouraging innovation by subsidy is warranted. One such way is reducing the risk.

This mechanism makes it not just amazing for those wanting to take on their private venture, but it will push out the productivity frontier of the economy and everyone will be (potentially) better off (depending on how the gain ends up distributed).
 
Why would there be no net gain from working? UBI would never be much more than basic subsistence. So unless you don't mind being very poor there is an incentive to work just as much as there is now. The biggest differences would be that we don't waste vast sums of money means testing everything, often in a way that victimises the poor and sick, and we would avoid people falling between the cracks. Those working would gain the UBI and pay more tax so would be about the same off. It also prepares us for an increase in less than full employment with increased automation.

Personally I'd combine it with defunding private schools (no banning them but not giving them tax dollars) and making Higher Education free again and spending big on affordable social housing.
 
Wibble said:
The biggest differences would be that we don't waste vast sums of money means testing everything, often in a way that victimises the poor and sick, and we would avoid people falling between the cracks.
Click to expand...
I might also add that a significant number of people that have a right to benefits are 'hard-to-reach' for governments and never receive them because they aren't aware of this right, don't know of understand the procedure or its forms, or another similar reason. Another issue UBI could do away with.
 
esmufc07 said:
With rapid advancements in AI this needs to happen sooner rather than later.

Click to expand...

Indeed. However, using just 30 people for this is absurd. Should have been a few thousand people spread over many categories (location, gender, age, level of education, race, marital status, occupation, currently being employed or not etc) to really be able to get some decent conclusions.
 
Revan said:
Indeed. However, using just 30 people for this is absurd. Should have been a few thousand people spread over many categories (location, gender, age, level of education, race, marital status, occupation, currently being employed or not etc) to really be able to get some decent conclusions.
Click to expand...

Yep. Seems like this is nailed on to take two years to be completely inconclusive. Which is probably what they want.
 
Lets never try it and then when something that isn't true UBI with a miniscule sample size doesn't give statistically meaningful data say it didn't work and carry on as before.
 
Wibble said:
Lets never try it and then when something that isn't true UBI with a miniscule sample size doesn't give statistically meaningful data say it didn't work and carry on as before.
Click to expand...
Yeah :lol:.

Wish our country wasn’t crippled by corruption and incompetence so we could have a fighting chance of trying something like this - but not a chance in hell when you just think through the sheer unemployment numbers and inequality gap. Sad but such is life.
 
So they want to see what effect it has on peoples mental and physical health and they'd be interested in knowing whether people would prefer to work or receive £1600 pm?

Why need 2 years to find the answer when it's blatantly obvious what the answer going to be?
 
Forevergiggs1 said:
So they want to see what effect it has on peoples mental and physical health and they'd be interested in knowing whether people would prefer to work or receive £1600 pm?

Why need 2 years to find the answer when it's blatantly obvious what the answer going to be?
Click to expand...
It’s not a case of “work or receive £1600” though. It’s universal basic income. It’s not means tested, they can receive £1600 and still go and work and earn more.

The idea is that everyone gets a basic payment which covers your most basic cost of living. Means testing is removed which saves billions in wasted admin and removes the awful jealousy and suspicion around benefits.
 
Forevergiggs1 said:
So they want to see what effect it has on peoples mental and physical health and they'd be interested in knowing whether people would prefer to work or receive £1600 pm?

Why need 2 years to find the answer when it's blatantly obvious what the answer going to be?
Click to expand...

what do you think the answer would be if people had to chose between work or 1600 a month? (even though that isn't the choice)

I would guess most people would chose to work

If you're like 60 with your house paid off it would be a good chance to retire early, but other than that it's not enough money to live on
 
Tarrou said:
what do you think the answer would be if people had to chose between work or 1600 a month? (even though that isn't the choice)

I would guess most people would chose to work

If you're like 60 with your house paid off it would be a good chance to retire early, but other than that it's not enough money to live on
Click to expand...

For the majority it would be not work, if that was the option in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.