6 ms·

Why don't we do a basic income lottery? - Anyone except previous winners can enter. - You can only enter once per drawing. - As the pool increases the payout

by komodo 10y ago

Why don't we do a basic income lottery? - Anyone except previous winners can enter. - You can only enter once per drawing. - As the pool increases the payout does not, only the number of winners. - Winners get a basic income for life. - As another condition they agree to an amount of monitoring so that we can effectively study how they behave with the basic income. - This one would be hard, but you might have to be made ineligible for other government assistance programs maybe? State lotteries already offer annuity payouts and even better they sometimes have 100k for life lotteries. These aren't perfect as the amount is too high but it's worth studying anyway. The basic income lottery described above would be an even better approximation. EDIT: I just did a bit of googling and it looks like this has been tried before [1][2] , but the amounts were time-limited and low. It would probably have to be state-sponsored to take off. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-basic-income-lottery-2016-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-basic-income-lottery-... [2] https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-my-basic-income-project-community#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-my-basic-income-proje...

oh_sigh 10y ago
There are already lotteries that pay out $1k/week or something for life.
omash 10y ago
I bet winning in a lottery feels a lot different to receiving your regular allowance the same as everyone else. I think this would affect behaviour.
- prawn 10y ago
  Yes, a lottery winner would be swamped by many surrounding them. Less likely to happen in a trial where the full community is receiving a similar income.
ChrisjayHenn 10y ago
The only bit i'd quibble with is becoming ineligible for other assistance programs - one concern pro-UBI economists raise is that if it replaces social programs, the cost of necessities like childcare and housing will just increase proportionally. There's a good argument to be made that certain social goods are actually better when there is no profit motive for the people providing it. Aside from that, I really like your idea. Given the number of people who want to see a UBI, this might be one celebrity endorsement away from getting crowdfunded.
- Supraperplex 10y ago
  > There's a good argument to be made that certain social goods are actually better when there is no profit motive for the people providing it. Can you elaborate on that? I honestly can't see it.
jondubois 10y ago
NOOO! That is a terrible idea. There is already way too much luck involved in our current economic system. If would really suck if all your friends won the lottery but you didn't. These kinds of economic lotteries only create more inequality; which is against the whole point of UBI. It makes more sense to start by giving out a really low UBI to EVERYONE and then gradually raise that amount over time.
- wlievens 10y ago
  That also sounds a lot more legally practical, I think. You could even slowly adjust welfare and taxes as you increase the UBI.
- komodo 10y ago
  I only meant as a way to sort of crowdfund research, not as a long term solution. Re: your last line, does the US Earned Income Tax Credit count?
wlievens 10y ago
You'd probaby have to change their tax regimen too. Seems completely unworkable.

by komodo 10y ago

oh_sigh 10y ago

There are already lotteries that pay out $1k/week or something for life.

omash 10y ago

I bet winning in a lottery feels a lot different to receiving your regular allowance the same as everyone else. I think this would affect behaviour.

prawn 10y ago
Yes, a lottery winner would be swamped by many surrounding them. Less likely to happen in a trial where the full community is receiving a similar income.

ChrisjayHenn 10y ago

The only bit i'd quibble with is becoming ineligible for other assistance programs - one concern pro-UBI economists raise is that if it replaces social programs, the cost of necessities like childcare and housing will just increase proportionally. There's a good argument to be made that certain social goods are actually better when there is no profit motive for the people providing it. Aside from that, I really like your idea. Given the number of people who want to see a UBI, this might be one celebrity endorsement away from getting crowdfunded.

Supraperplex 10y ago
> There's a good argument to be made that certain social goods are actually better when there is no profit motive for the people providing it. Can you elaborate on that? I honestly can't see it.

jondubois 10y ago

NOOO! That is a terrible idea. There is already way too much luck involved in our current economic system. If would really suck if all your friends won the lottery but you didn't. These kinds of economic lotteries only create more inequality; which is against the whole point of UBI. It makes more sense to start by giving out a really low UBI to EVERYONE and then gradually raise that amount over time.

wlievens 10y ago
That also sounds a lot more legally practical, I think. You could even slowly adjust welfare and taxes as you increase the UBI.
komodo 10y ago
I only meant as a way to sort of crowdfund research, not as a long term solution. Re: your last line, does the US Earned Income Tax Credit count?

wlievens 10y ago

You'd probaby have to change their tax regimen too. Seems completely unworkable.