3 ms·

I feel like universal basic income will only work in progressive societies that have gotten used to various social programs before. They might go bankrupt long

I feel like universal basic income will only work in progressive societies that have gotten used to various social programs before. They might go bankrupt long before any of it's population actually receive money due to corruption. In country's with high poverty level where people don't possess the minimal quality of life, I highly doubt the spirit of basic income will even be recognized but seen more of a cash grab where you'd be considered stupid for not taking advantage of. Such is the effect of poverty-removes the ability to seek long term societal gains for short term selfish gain at the cost of rest of society. There may be cultural differences but they all boil down to economics of that specific region and country. My feeling is that a basic quality of life and the infrastructure to support it must be present for universal basic income to work. It's just too easy to cheat when so many of your peers will undoubtedly do it at your expense. It's expensive to cheat when none of your peer are willing to do it due to social stigma and shame.

hsuresh 10y ago
> I feel like universal basic income will only work in progressive societies that have gotten used to various social programs before. They might go bankrupt long before any of it's population actually receive money due to corruption. I actually think it is the opposite. UBI might work better precisely because corruption prevents other welfare schemes reaching the target population. At least in theory, the direct cash transfer should help pull out a lot of people from abject poverty. The article quotes a jump from 22% absolute poverty to 0.5% - if it does that, it would go a long way in accelerating growth in India.
- brilliantcode 10y ago
  The bigger question is how they will fund this. India is know for the capital flight. Rich people aren't paying taxes in India so the government doesn't have much money to spend on social welfare. Unless I'm wrong here? I'm not too familiar with India so please excuse any cultural ignorances.
  - harigov 10y ago
    I wonder if the plan here is to create a market by creating consumers. If enough consumers are present and the govt requires companies to invest money in building industries in India, in order to serve those consumers, they can probably speed up development. Where do they get money? "Quantitative easing"
  - hsuresh 10y ago
    The argument for direct cash transfers (not really UBI, but a predecessor of sorts) was that, there are already millions being spent on subsidies and other welfare schemes, and only a small percentage of them actually reach the needy.
  - kiba 10y ago
    They simply redirect funding from existing welfare scheme to this type of scheme, particularly the least enforced, most corrupt and inefficient scheme. A UBI would be much easier to audit. Your problem might be identity theft or the creation of entirely fictitious person.
- notahacker 10y ago
  But as the article outlines, the schemes that India needs to cut to fund it comprise half of India's annual budget - which means less spending on things India desperately lacks like infrastructure - and each recipient gets $113 per annum, which is a undoubtedly a real boon to some of them but really doesn't go that far towards accelerating growth in India. And the corrupt are not going to find it any harder to siphon funds from unworldly, unbanked and often illiterate people living (or better still, recently deceased) in remote villages than they are to siphon off funds spent in other ways. Unless and until India gets dumbphone-based banking, the sheer logistics of dispensing money to a billion people is pretty mindboggling.
  - calvinbhai 10y ago
    Not sure if you are from India or not, but it looks like you are not aware of how banking has improved in India. Dumbphone banking is possible for more than a billion people (as long as they can afford a dumbphone service and have Aadhar - biometric ID). I say billion and not all Indians, because there's < 300 million Indians who are yet to get their Aadhar ID cards. With UBI even the poorest should be able to afford a dumb phone and a phone service. India has all the needed infra to dispense money to a billion people. All it needs to ensure is, if UBI is implemented, remove every single subsidy thats currently given. What would be worse, is to have a haphazard implementation of UBI without removing subsidies, and people revolting at removal of either of these schemes.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
They might go bankrupt long before any of it's population actually receive money due to corruption. The explicitly stated purpose of UBI here is that it can be implemented via direct electronic transfers to the recipients. That's pretty easy to audit electronically, particularly with biometrics which India is implementing. In contrast, something like the LPG subsidy (which involves the physical delivery of gas cylinders) is insanely hard to police. How can the central government ensure that cylinders don't go to people who don't need them, that they contain the appropriate amount of gas, etc? It's virtually impossible.
zimzam 10y ago
This seems like a poorly thought out comment: the point of UBI is that everyone is signed up for it. Everyone gets it and that simplicity makes it far easier to audit. AFAIK, having only ever read about India online, everyone has a biometric-backed ID already, making it easier to link payments to individuals. Another anticipated benefit of UBI is that once people are out of desperate poverty there is less incentive to cheat. (We have seen that paying police officers a living wage is one way of reducing police asking for bribes: I imagine that a similar dynamic would be at play with UBI)

hsuresh 10y ago

> I feel like universal basic income will only work in progressive societies that have gotten used to various social programs before. They might go bankrupt long before any of it's population actually receive money due to corruption. I actually think it is the opposite. UBI might work better precisely because corruption prevents other welfare schemes reaching the target population. At least in theory, the direct cash transfer should help pull out a lot of people from abject poverty. The article quotes a jump from 22% absolute poverty to 0.5% - if it does that, it would go a long way in accelerating growth in India.

brilliantcode 10y ago
The bigger question is how they will fund this. India is know for the capital flight. Rich people aren't paying taxes in India so the government doesn't have much money to spend on social welfare. Unless I'm wrong here? I'm not too familiar with India so please excuse any cultural ignorances.
- harigov 10y ago
  I wonder if the plan here is to create a market by creating consumers. If enough consumers are present and the govt requires companies to invest money in building industries in India, in order to serve those consumers, they can probably speed up development. Where do they get money? "Quantitative easing"
- hsuresh 10y ago
  The argument for direct cash transfers (not really UBI, but a predecessor of sorts) was that, there are already millions being spent on subsidies and other welfare schemes, and only a small percentage of them actually reach the needy.
- kiba 10y ago
  They simply redirect funding from existing welfare scheme to this type of scheme, particularly the least enforced, most corrupt and inefficient scheme. A UBI would be much easier to audit. Your problem might be identity theft or the creation of entirely fictitious person.
notahacker 10y ago
But as the article outlines, the schemes that India needs to cut to fund it comprise half of India's annual budget - which means less spending on things India desperately lacks like infrastructure - and each recipient gets $113 per annum, which is a undoubtedly a real boon to some of them but really doesn't go that far towards accelerating growth in India. And the corrupt are not going to find it any harder to siphon funds from unworldly, unbanked and often illiterate people living (or better still, recently deceased) in remote villages than they are to siphon off funds spent in other ways. Unless and until India gets dumbphone-based banking, the sheer logistics of dispensing money to a billion people is pretty mindboggling.
- calvinbhai 10y ago
  Not sure if you are from India or not, but it looks like you are not aware of how banking has improved in India. Dumbphone banking is possible for more than a billion people (as long as they can afford a dumbphone service and have Aadhar - biometric ID). I say billion and not all Indians, because there's < 300 million Indians who are yet to get their Aadhar ID cards. With UBI even the poorest should be able to afford a dumb phone and a phone service. India has all the needed infra to dispense money to a billion people. All it needs to ensure is, if UBI is implemented, remove every single subsidy thats currently given. What would be worse, is to have a haphazard implementation of UBI without removing subsidies, and people revolting at removal of either of these schemes.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

They might go bankrupt long before any of it's population actually receive money due to corruption. The explicitly stated purpose of UBI here is that it can be implemented via direct electronic transfers to the recipients. That's pretty easy to audit electronically, particularly with biometrics which India is implementing. In contrast, something like the LPG subsidy (which involves the physical delivery of gas cylinders) is insanely hard to police. How can the central government ensure that cylinders don't go to people who don't need them, that they contain the appropriate amount of gas, etc? It's virtually impossible.

zimzam 10y ago

This seems like a poorly thought out comment: the point of UBI is that everyone is signed up for it. Everyone gets it and that simplicity makes it far easier to audit. AFAIK, having only ever read about India online, everyone has a biometric-backed ID already, making it easier to link payments to individuals. Another anticipated benefit of UBI is that once people are out of desperate poverty there is less incentive to cheat. (We have seen that paying police officers a living wage is one way of reducing police asking for bribes: I imagine that a similar dynamic would be at play with UBI)