3 ms·

I'm partial to it as an idea and a sentiment, but what it would take to institute it is the impossible: deciding on the level of it. Should it be $5,000 per mo

by dilemma 11y ago

I'm partial to it as an idea and a sentiment, but what it would take to institute it is the impossible: deciding on the level of it. Should it be $5,000 per month so that the full costs of an apartment in NYC/SF so that a family could on with their lives undisturbed by unemployment? Or, should it be $500 to cover just the most fundamental needs of shelter and nourishment in the Midwest? There are many levels in-between -- it's just as impossible to decide between $1,000 and $1,500 -- and if you went ahead to implement UBI, the conflict this would cause would halt implementation.

isomorphic 11y ago
Most states have some form of income tax. The federal government could work with an average UBI amount, which each state could increase (or not) from its own budget. (Not that the above isn't contentious and probably stands no chance of being put into place; I'm just suggesting a model to address your point.)
- dilemma 11y ago
  No. The problem of deciding on the level of UBI remains, and remains impossible regardless of who is making the decision.
mirimir 11y ago
Where to take the money from is not so doable either. But hey, let's wait until most of the truck drivers have lost their jobs, and are camped out in DC. That will help greatly to focus the debate.
adrianN 11y ago
You start with very little, say $100 a month, that can be paid from current tax revenue, and increase it as the productivity per worker increases.
- dilemma 11y ago
  Completely unfeasible. 1. $100 is roughly the same as $0 in the US; you cannot live on it at all. It does simply not pass as UBI. 2. The impossible decision to be made on the final level remains. You just put it off until tomorrow and obfuscate that this is what you're doing.
  - adrianN 11y ago
    $100 probably makes a big difference for the crowd that lives on hamburger helper and ramen at the end of the month. Why would you want to fix the final level? UBI can be raised continuously, tied to worker productivity levels for example.
    - dilemma 11y ago
      At any point in time, the level is fixed. You yourself propose fixing it at $100 for an unspecified duration.

by dilemma 11y ago

isomorphic 11y ago

Most states have some form of income tax. The federal government could work with an average UBI amount, which each state could increase (or not) from its own budget. (Not that the above isn't contentious and probably stands no chance of being put into place; I'm just suggesting a model to address your point.)

dilemma 11y ago
No. The problem of deciding on the level of UBI remains, and remains impossible regardless of who is making the decision.

mirimir 11y ago

Where to take the money from is not so doable either. But hey, let's wait until most of the truck drivers have lost their jobs, and are camped out in DC. That will help greatly to focus the debate.

adrianN 11y ago

You start with very little, say $100 a month, that can be paid from current tax revenue, and increase it as the productivity per worker increases.

dilemma 11y ago
Completely unfeasible. 1. $100 is roughly the same as $0 in the US; you cannot live on it at all. It does simply not pass as UBI. 2. The impossible decision to be made on the final level remains. You just put it off until tomorrow and obfuscate that this is what you're doing.
- adrianN 11y ago
  $100 probably makes a big difference for the crowd that lives on hamburger helper and ramen at the end of the month. Why would you want to fix the final level? UBI can be raised continuously, tied to worker productivity levels for example.
  - dilemma 11y ago
    At any point in time, the level is fixed. You yourself propose fixing it at $100 for an unspecified duration.