4 ms·

As an experiment to see if it's economically viable, yes it's flawed. But to explore possible benefits it still has value. What originally made me more open to

As an experiment to see if it's economically viable, yes it's flawed. But to explore possible benefits it still has value. What originally made me more open to the idea was reading about a similar (I think) experiment and all the indirect outcomes like kids staying in school instead of working to support their families, more families with one parent often with the children, etc.

JonFish85 11y ago
And that's valuable, sure. My point is more a question of if it's truly a "Universal Basic Income" experiment, it should be done so that it's paid for by the taxpayers of that same system. My suspicion is that such a program would dissolve fairly quickly because the tax burden falls squarely on people who have worked the hardest to pay their own bills and to provide for their own family. If they suddenly have to lower their quality of life, or their kids' quality of life to pay for someone who they perceive as not working very hard, then the system gets difficult. It's much simpler to make money appear out of thin air (as it effectively is when you take millions of dollars from rich folks in California) and distribute it in Africa. But if you have to take money some folks' pockets in Africa to give to their neighbors, that to me is a more 1-to-1 comparison at what happens for a UBI.
- surfaceTensi0n 11y ago
  Why do you think UBI would be paid for by people who need it most? My assumption is that it would be paid for with a combination of cuts to social programs (i.e. those replaced by UBI) and more progressive taxes and/or corporations. So in effect it still will be "rich folks" paying for UBI.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    Depends on whether you pay for it mostly from increased taxes or cuts to benefits. It's certainly possible to design a UBI programme where comfortably middle class families are the chief beneficiaries and existing state handout recipients, (i.e. "poor folks") the chief losers. And it's certainly true that many of UBI's most prominent proponents on the right are also amongst the most prominent opponents of any attempt to raise taxes on the rich...
    - surfaceTensi0n 11y ago
      Yeah, I guess that assumption is an optimistic one. I tend to mostly think of UBI as a left/progressive issue. I only have a passing familiarity with what folks on the right think about UBI but mostly historically, not present day. Got any links handy to help me broaden my horizons?
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  That's not so different from how tax and welfare currently works in America, and the current redistributions are far more complex than UBI would be.
  - kmonsen 11y ago
    Except the UBI tax will be very large, and in addition to current entitlements.
    - TallGuyShort 11y ago
      Isn't the whole point of UBI to replace other entitlements? If everyone has basic income, why have food stamps? Or disability? Or social security?
      - kmonsen 11y ago
        See this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11424820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11424820
        TallGuyShort 11y ago
        Thanks - those are good points...

JonFish85 11y ago

And that's valuable, sure. My point is more a question of if it's truly a "Universal Basic Income" experiment, it should be done so that it's paid for by the taxpayers of that same system. My suspicion is that such a program would dissolve fairly quickly because the tax burden falls squarely on people who have worked the hardest to pay their own bills and to provide for their own family. If they suddenly have to lower their quality of life, or their kids' quality of life to pay for someone who they perceive as not working very hard, then the system gets difficult. It's much simpler to make money appear out of thin air (as it effectively is when you take millions of dollars from rich folks in California) and distribute it in Africa. But if you have to take money some folks' pockets in Africa to give to their neighbors, that to me is a more 1-to-1 comparison at what happens for a UBI.

surfaceTensi0n 11y ago
Why do you think UBI would be paid for by people who need it most? My assumption is that it would be paid for with a combination of cuts to social programs (i.e. those replaced by UBI) and more progressive taxes and/or corporations. So in effect it still will be "rich folks" paying for UBI.
- notahacker 11y ago
  Depends on whether you pay for it mostly from increased taxes or cuts to benefits. It's certainly possible to design a UBI programme where comfortably middle class families are the chief beneficiaries and existing state handout recipients, (i.e. "poor folks") the chief losers. And it's certainly true that many of UBI's most prominent proponents on the right are also amongst the most prominent opponents of any attempt to raise taxes on the rich...
  - surfaceTensi0n 11y ago
    Yeah, I guess that assumption is an optimistic one. I tend to mostly think of UBI as a left/progressive issue. I only have a passing familiarity with what folks on the right think about UBI but mostly historically, not present day. Got any links handy to help me broaden my horizons?
TallGuyShort 11y ago
That's not so different from how tax and welfare currently works in America, and the current redistributions are far more complex than UBI would be.
- kmonsen 11y ago
  Except the UBI tax will be very large, and in addition to current entitlements.
  - TallGuyShort 11y ago
    Isn't the whole point of UBI to replace other entitlements? If everyone has basic income, why have food stamps? Or disability? Or social security?
    - kmonsen 11y ago
      See this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11424820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11424820
      - TallGuyShort 11y ago
        Thanks - those are good points...