5 ms·

The main problem with a general basic income is that it would be enormously wasteful, regressive and unfair. If you have a good economic situation, 250$/month i

The main problem with a general basic income is that it would be enormously wasteful, regressive and unfair. If you have a good economic situation, 250$/month is peanuts. If you are grasping for air, it won't be enough; even more so if it comes at the expense of getting rid of public programmes that can target concrete problems and leverage economies of scale. Other approaches (e.g. minimum guaranteed income for the jobless and tax credits for the working poor) look like a far better use of resources.

takno 10y ago
If you're earning more you will effectively pay the money back in higher taxes, so the transfer will be much the same as for a minimum guaranteed income, but without the costly administration, confusing rules and moral judgement that come with minimum guaranteed incomes
- rhino369 10y ago
  How much money is actually spent on the costs of administration that would actually be eliminated by UBI, which is mostly just qualification paperwork? You'd still need fraud prevention--people faking identities. You'd still paper pushers who coordinate payments and customer service. I can't believe this really would create all that much savings when averaged out over 330 million people.
  - takno 10y ago
    Ignoring the government's costs, people on welfare in the UK can easily end up spending 20 hours a week on claiming that welfare, spread between having to transport themselves to attend a weekly signing on session, making a set number of job applications that meet the criteria (at the same time as conducting a real job search), attending worthless courses and filling out the paperwork. If you remove the moral judgement you remove the need for this busy-work, which is a massive overall cost to society
    - rhino369 10y ago
      That's not really a cost to society. It's a cost of time from those who have plenty of time to spend.
      - takno 10y ago
        They are, last I checked, members of society. It's also unhelpful to assume they have the time to spend on this - low income already means that basic things like shopping and getting around take a lot longer since they can't pay for convenience, and they could be spending the time they have on education or even hunting for actual jobs rather than going through a meaningless tick-box approach.

takno 10y ago

If you're earning more you will effectively pay the money back in higher taxes, so the transfer will be much the same as for a minimum guaranteed income, but without the costly administration, confusing rules and moral judgement that come with minimum guaranteed incomes

rhino369 10y ago
How much money is actually spent on the costs of administration that would actually be eliminated by UBI, which is mostly just qualification paperwork? You'd still need fraud prevention--people faking identities. You'd still paper pushers who coordinate payments and customer service. I can't believe this really would create all that much savings when averaged out over 330 million people.
- takno 10y ago
  Ignoring the government's costs, people on welfare in the UK can easily end up spending 20 hours a week on claiming that welfare, spread between having to transport themselves to attend a weekly signing on session, making a set number of job applications that meet the criteria (at the same time as conducting a real job search), attending worthless courses and filling out the paperwork. If you remove the moral judgement you remove the need for this busy-work, which is a massive overall cost to society
  - rhino369 10y ago
    That's not really a cost to society. It's a cost of time from those who have plenty of time to spend.
    - takno 10y ago
      They are, last I checked, members of society. It's also unhelpful to assume they have the time to spend on this - low income already means that basic things like shopping and getting around take a lot longer since they can't pay for convenience, and they could be spending the time they have on education or even hunting for actual jobs rather than going through a meaningless tick-box approach.