4 ms·

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:

by 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...
    - Matumio 11y ago
      Those are great, thanks! All bookmarked.
  - ChrisLomont 11y ago
    Another good read [1]. Here is a quote from the author of some key papers in favor of cash to certain poor, also the author of some pop articles on the idea: "If I were an enterprising young researcher looking for an idea and experiments that will prove powerful in five years, I would try to find the stake I can drive into the heart of the cash transfer movement." He states that giving cash is useful if the person is enterprising, such as trying to start a business, and direct cash is what is holding them back. I doubt this is most poor people, especially in the US. Otherwise, cash is not as useful as other poverty alleviation methods. [1] http://chrisblattman.com/2013/06/27/why-cash-transfers-to-the-poor-are-not-the-next-big-thing/ http://chrisblattman.com/2013/06/27/why-cash-transfers-to-th...

by rictic 11y ago

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...
  - Matumio 11y ago
    Those are great, thanks! All bookmarked.
- ChrisLomont 11y ago
  Another good read [1]. Here is a quote from the author of some key papers in favor of cash to certain poor, also the author of some pop articles on the idea: "If I were an enterprising young researcher looking for an idea and experiments that will prove powerful in five years, I would try to find the stake I can drive into the heart of the cash transfer movement." He states that giving cash is useful if the person is enterprising, such as trying to start a business, and direct cash is what is holding them back. I doubt this is most poor people, especially in the US. Otherwise, cash is not as useful as other poverty alleviation methods. [1] http://chrisblattman.com/2013/06/27/why-cash-transfers-to-the-poor-are-not-the-next-big-thing/ http://chrisblattman.com/2013/06/27/why-cash-transfers-to-th...