5 ms·

This poses the question: instead of paying out a monthly UBI, why not give every citizen the equivalent lump sum up front? They can then decide how to invest th

by beojan 10y ago

This poses the question: instead of paying out a monthly UBI, why not give every citizen the equivalent lump sum up front? They can then decide how to invest that money themselves.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
captainmuon 10y ago
For what period? A year? A lifetime? If the period is too long, you'll just get ridiculous inflation, and also the money has to come from somewhere (if the state doesn't want to borrow it all up front). I think the idea of UBI is to be sustainable, steady-state, so monthly seems a good interval.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Depending on how you wish to behave on a moral level a yearly payment might limit the expenditure of the program. For example a friend of mine applied for and eventually was accepted into the SSDI program. He was disabled due to the fact that he was addicted to xanax and heroin. You have to wait a decent period of time (6 months?) before the benefits kick in, at the end of that period you receive a lump sum for the period of time that you waited. Well my friend took his new found riches, ran to his dealer, and promptly overdosed. I'd argue the cost savings are a net negative in that case but something to consider.
- beojan 10y ago
  A lifetime. The idea is that they will invest the money, and the interest / gains will provide the income. Using a safe withdrawal rate of 4%, this would be the equivalent of 25 years of UBI. Our economy functions on the basic idea that everyone can contribute their labour. In a world where labour is no longer needed, but capital is, this gives every person a starting sum of capital that they can contribute as they wish.
jhbadger 10y ago
So people who are well versed in financial affairs can do well and those who aren't should lose everything? That's exactly the opposite of what the UBI is supposed to achieve.
- beojan 10y ago
  No, a UBI is supposed to give people a way to live in a world where the basic assumption that labour (something everyone can contribute) is no longer necessary. What would remain necessary is capital, and a lump sum would give everyone a meaningful amount of capital that they can contribute (invest) as they see fit.

by beojan 10y ago

This poses the question: instead of paying out a monthly UBI, why not give every citizen the equivalent lump sum up front? They can then decide how to invest that money themselves.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

captainmuon 10y ago

For what period? A year? A lifetime? If the period is too long, you'll just get ridiculous inflation, and also the money has to come from somewhere (if the state doesn't want to borrow it all up front). I think the idea of UBI is to be sustainable, steady-state, so monthly seems a good interval.

cmdrfred 10y ago
Depending on how you wish to behave on a moral level a yearly payment might limit the expenditure of the program. For example a friend of mine applied for and eventually was accepted into the SSDI program. He was disabled due to the fact that he was addicted to xanax and heroin. You have to wait a decent period of time (6 months?) before the benefits kick in, at the end of that period you receive a lump sum for the period of time that you waited. Well my friend took his new found riches, ran to his dealer, and promptly overdosed. I'd argue the cost savings are a net negative in that case but something to consider.
beojan 10y ago
A lifetime. The idea is that they will invest the money, and the interest / gains will provide the income. Using a safe withdrawal rate of 4%, this would be the equivalent of 25 years of UBI. Our economy functions on the basic idea that everyone can contribute their labour. In a world where labour is no longer needed, but capital is, this gives every person a starting sum of capital that they can contribute as they wish.

jhbadger 10y ago

So people who are well versed in financial affairs can do well and those who aren't should lose everything? That's exactly the opposite of what the UBI is supposed to achieve.

beojan 10y ago
No, a UBI is supposed to give people a way to live in a world where the basic assumption that labour (something everyone can contribute) is no longer necessary. What would remain necessary is capital, and a lump sum would give everyone a meaningful amount of capital that they can contribute (invest) as they see fit.