4 ms·

That's actually one of the arguments for UBI (unconditional basic income) - it would reduce the problem that welfare can't reach many of the people who are supp

by Matumio 11y ago

That's actually one of the arguments for UBI (unconditional basic income) - it would reduce the problem that welfare can't reach many of the people who are supposed to benefit from it but too proud to ask for help. (UBI would also reduce the welfare trap mentioned in the Cato article.)

ChrisLomont 11y ago
So instead of trying to allocate limited resources to those who most need it we should instead blindly split those resources equally among everyone? And this will help the poor how?
- nitrogen 11y ago
  The argument behind the U in UBI (universal) is that it removes incentives against work (cases where working harder yields less money), costs less because there's no effort to keep people out, and is repaid as taxes by those with larger incomes. I'd need to see numbers again, but it's raw numbers we should use to decide how to run an economy, not rhetoric about "helping the poor how?"
- rictic 11y ago
  The wealthy will, in effect, receive nothing, as their taxes will increase more than they will receive from UBI. Two of the strongest arguments for UBI are: 1) we waste a lot of money administering welfare services. UBI is designed to be inexpensive to administer, which directs more money to the poor. 2) research is beginning to suggest that direct cash transfers have better long term impact per dollar spent than just about any other intervention. see, e.g. research on GiveDirectly's impact
  - icebraining 11y ago
    The wealthy will, in effect, receive nothing, as their taxes will increase more than they will receive from UBI. Yes, but what about the working/low-middle class who currently mostly doesn't pay for nor receive welfare? That's money that could be allocated for the actual poor.
    - XorNot 11y ago
      The point is that you spend more money trying to do this, and help less people, then just not worrying about it. Attempts at identifying the truly needy end up mostly excluding them and making the aid less helpful overall.
      - ChrisLomont 11y ago
        >The point is that you spend more money trying to do this, and help less people, then just not worrying about it. People keep repeating this. Go ahead and give us the actual numbers involved in your claims to back it up, since it fails even the most basic of smell tests.
  - ChrisLomont 11y ago
    >1) we waste a lot of money administering welfare services. UBI is designed to be inexpensive to administer, which directs more money to the poor. I find it hard to believe we waste more money administering welfare than we will transfer to those who really don't need it under the need-blind UBI. Under UBI we'll be giving money to many, many people who need it less than the current welfare recipients, and even UBI will require administration. A solution (UBI) that claims to help a group (the actual needy) that is not tailored to administer to that group is unlikely to benefit them, especially since it's now going to split the fixed amount of benefits to others not in the group. >see, e.g. research on GiveDirectly's impact What works in Kenya does not necessarily work at every location and economy. It's not like we have not studied this question in the US for nearly a century, and recent research on foreign third world cases does not overturn a century of research on first world economic aid. And this is not an argument for UBI. At best it would be an argument to change current welfare programs to give cash aid to those already eligible for welfare.
    - Matumio 11y ago
      Do you happen to have any pointers to such research? If anything rigorous (comparable to GiveDirectly's randomized controlled trials) has been done in the US about the effect of just handing out cash, I would really be interested.
      - Futurebot 11y ago
        Some studies: http://econweb.tamu.edu/common/files/workshops/PERC%20Applied%20Microeconomics/2011_3_23_Jesse_Cunha.pdf http://econweb.tamu.edu/common/files/workshops/PERC%20Applie... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387813001715 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387813... http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/cfgb---impact-of-cash-transfers-on-food-consumption-may-2013-final-clean.pdf http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/cfg... Articles related to the studies: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-happens-when-you-just-give-money-to-poor-people http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-... http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-money-directly-poor-people-works-surprisingly-well-it-cannot-deal http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-... (direct cash vs CCTs) http://www.fastcoexist.com/3049642/solving-inequality/how-to-fight-poverty-its-simple-give-cash-to-poor-people http://www.fastcoexist.com/3049642/solving-inequality/how-to... http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/welfare-reform-direct-cash-poor/407236/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/wel...
- tsotha 11y ago
  The idea is everyone ends up better off because you don't need a giant civil service bureaucracy to apply arcane rules about who does and does not qualify for various subsidies.

by Matumio 11y ago

ChrisLomont 11y ago

So instead of trying to allocate limited resources to those who most need it we should instead blindly split those resources equally among everyone? And this will help the poor how?

nitrogen 11y ago
The argument behind the U in UBI (universal) is that it removes incentives against work (cases where working harder yields less money), costs less because there's no effort to keep people out, and is repaid as taxes by those with larger incomes. I'd need to see numbers again, but it's raw numbers we should use to decide how to run an economy, not rhetoric about "helping the poor how?"
rictic 11y ago
The wealthy will, in effect, receive nothing, as their taxes will increase more than they will receive from UBI. Two of the strongest arguments for UBI are: 1) we waste a lot of money administering welfare services. UBI is designed to be inexpensive to administer, which directs more money to the poor. 2) research is beginning to suggest that direct cash transfers have better long term impact per dollar spent than just about any other intervention. see, e.g. research on GiveDirectly's impact
- icebraining 11y ago
  The wealthy will, in effect, receive nothing, as their taxes will increase more than they will receive from UBI. Yes, but what about the working/low-middle class who currently mostly doesn't pay for nor receive welfare? That's money that could be allocated for the actual poor.
  - XorNot 11y ago
    The point is that you spend more money trying to do this, and help less people, then just not worrying about it. Attempts at identifying the truly needy end up mostly excluding them and making the aid less helpful overall.
    - ChrisLomont 11y ago
      >The point is that you spend more money trying to do this, and help less people, then just not worrying about it. People keep repeating this. Go ahead and give us the actual numbers involved in your claims to back it up, since it fails even the most basic of smell tests.
- ChrisLomont 11y ago
  >1) we waste a lot of money administering welfare services. UBI is designed to be inexpensive to administer, which directs more money to the poor. I find it hard to believe we waste more money administering welfare than we will transfer to those who really don't need it under the need-blind UBI. Under UBI we'll be giving money to many, many people who need it less than the current welfare recipients, and even UBI will require administration. A solution (UBI) that claims to help a group (the actual needy) that is not tailored to administer to that group is unlikely to benefit them, especially since it's now going to split the fixed amount of benefits to others not in the group. >see, e.g. research on GiveDirectly's impact What works in Kenya does not necessarily work at every location and economy. It's not like we have not studied this question in the US for nearly a century, and recent research on foreign third world cases does not overturn a century of research on first world economic aid. And this is not an argument for UBI. At best it would be an argument to change current welfare programs to give cash aid to those already eligible for welfare.
  - Matumio 11y ago
    Do you happen to have any pointers to such research? If anything rigorous (comparable to GiveDirectly's randomized controlled trials) has been done in the US about the effect of just handing out cash, I would really be interested.
    - Futurebot 11y ago
      Some studies: http://econweb.tamu.edu/common/files/workshops/PERC%20Applied%20Microeconomics/2011_3_23_Jesse_Cunha.pdf http://econweb.tamu.edu/common/files/workshops/PERC%20Applie... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387813001715 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387813... http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/cfgb---impact-of-cash-transfers-on-food-consumption-may-2013-final-clean.pdf http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/cfg... Articles related to the studies: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-happens-when-you-just-give-money-to-poor-people http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-... http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-money-directly-poor-people-works-surprisingly-well-it-cannot-deal http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-... (direct cash vs CCTs) http://www.fastcoexist.com/3049642/solving-inequality/how-to-fight-poverty-its-simple-give-cash-to-poor-people http://www.fastcoexist.com/3049642/solving-inequality/how-to... http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/welfare-reform-direct-cash-poor/407236/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/wel...
tsotha 11y ago
The idea is everyone ends up better off because you don't need a giant civil service bureaucracy to apply arcane rules about who does and does not qualify for various subsidies.