3 ms·

I've heard a counter argument that basic income (and gov't funded social welfare, more generally) may actually reduce the amount of time/effort/money people per

I've heard a counter argument that basic income (and gov't funded social welfare, more generally) may actually reduce the amount of time/effort/money people personally expend on volunteerism/philanthropy. The thinking is that the existence of extensive gov't social welfare programs make people feel as if they have contributed (via taxes) and this reduce their personal responsibility to work on behalf of the less fortunate. Likewise, it undermines their empathy for the less fortunate because "well, they already receive welfare - so if they remain poor it must be because they [are lazy/addicted to drugs/antisocial/etc.]". I don't know if I agree with this argument; however, the cultural ramifications of BIG are certainly an important question to wrestle with. Edit: clarification - the argument is that this belief ("I've done my part") is extended because BIG covers all sources of welfare rather than targeted toward specific populations or purposes (children, mothers, food, etc). When everyone receives social welfare payments (rather than just specific kinds of people) it more fully extends the "I've done my part" feeling to the larger population (rather than specific slices of the population) and reduces overall charitable action.

icen 10y ago
This is a strange argument, because all of that rhetoric is status quo - people do argue (or argue via proxy; the words are different, but the substantive claims are the same) that people already receive enough. If that's the problem with universal basic income, then the only change is that such vulnerable people end up with more money, which must be a good thing.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  I suspect basic income would lead to an increase in inflation in the current environment. Wouldn't many people continue to work having received their stipend in order to obtain a higher standard of living than previously possible? (I know I would) Then wouldn't it follow that inflation would then take place all but entirely removing the utility of the basic income? In my opinion the jury is still out in regards to actually increasing standards of living over decade long time frames. It is entirely possible that it harms vulnerable people more than it aids them. More data is needed.
  - frandroid 10y ago
    The inflationary impact of UBI is rarely discussed but I think is very important. Unless it was paired with a mandatory salary cut (cue the howlers) I don't see how that would not happen.
    - delecti 10y ago
      Well UBI would naturally have to come along with greatly increased taxes on higher income levels, and property taxes would remain. I think the biggest issue of UBI is the transition period. How do you switch over?
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      The salary cut is also problematic. If you create a maximum wage that is too low you'd have employers competing for a smaller pool workers without any way to incentivize them. I suspect a great many jobs would simply become impossible to fill (oil worker, trash truck driver, construction laborer, etc). Perhaps you can make the amount say one million annually (adjusted to the now inflated dollars) but that likely wouldn't curb inflation all that much as few people are paid that well and would destroy the very tax base that is intended to fund the basic income in the first place. I'd support a move to a "Star Trek" economy but I just don't see how you pull it off.
    - GrinningFool 10y ago
      I'm not sure this is so. Presumably this is offset by tax increases- which means no new money is injected into the system. Instead, it's a literal redistribution lf existing money. While there might be some inflation as the supply of money available to those with low- to median income increase spending, I don't think it would be sufficient to offset the base change. On the other hand you would need to significantly increase taxes on upper-middle+ brackets to ensure no new money is introduced. After all they receive BI under this system too, which they'd effectively have to pay back and then some....
  - orangecat 10y ago
    I suspect basic income would lead to an increase in inflation in the current environment. How? It's the same amount of money, just redirected from existing welfare programs and redistributed via taxes. Then wouldn't it follow that inflation would then take place all but entirely removing the utility of the basic income? If you're making $10k/year and get another $10k from basic income, you'll be much better off even if somehow there is significant inflation. Basic income isn't a magic wand to make everyone richer. It's an efficient way of guaranteeing that everyone can cover their basic needs, without the inefficiencies and harmful incentives of the current system.

icen 10y ago

This is a strange argument, because all of that rhetoric is status quo - people do argue (or argue via proxy; the words are different, but the substantive claims are the same) that people already receive enough. If that's the problem with universal basic income, then the only change is that such vulnerable people end up with more money, which must be a good thing.

cmdrfred 10y ago
I suspect basic income would lead to an increase in inflation in the current environment. Wouldn't many people continue to work having received their stipend in order to obtain a higher standard of living than previously possible? (I know I would) Then wouldn't it follow that inflation would then take place all but entirely removing the utility of the basic income? In my opinion the jury is still out in regards to actually increasing standards of living over decade long time frames. It is entirely possible that it harms vulnerable people more than it aids them. More data is needed.
- frandroid 10y ago
  The inflationary impact of UBI is rarely discussed but I think is very important. Unless it was paired with a mandatory salary cut (cue the howlers) I don't see how that would not happen.
  - delecti 10y ago
    Well UBI would naturally have to come along with greatly increased taxes on higher income levels, and property taxes would remain. I think the biggest issue of UBI is the transition period. How do you switch over?
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    The salary cut is also problematic. If you create a maximum wage that is too low you'd have employers competing for a smaller pool workers without any way to incentivize them. I suspect a great many jobs would simply become impossible to fill (oil worker, trash truck driver, construction laborer, etc). Perhaps you can make the amount say one million annually (adjusted to the now inflated dollars) but that likely wouldn't curb inflation all that much as few people are paid that well and would destroy the very tax base that is intended to fund the basic income in the first place. I'd support a move to a "Star Trek" economy but I just don't see how you pull it off.
  - GrinningFool 10y ago
    I'm not sure this is so. Presumably this is offset by tax increases- which means no new money is injected into the system. Instead, it's a literal redistribution lf existing money. While there might be some inflation as the supply of money available to those with low- to median income increase spending, I don't think it would be sufficient to offset the base change. On the other hand you would need to significantly increase taxes on upper-middle+ brackets to ensure no new money is introduced. After all they receive BI under this system too, which they'd effectively have to pay back and then some....
- orangecat 10y ago
  I suspect basic income would lead to an increase in inflation in the current environment. How? It's the same amount of money, just redirected from existing welfare programs and redistributed via taxes. Then wouldn't it follow that inflation would then take place all but entirely removing the utility of the basic income? If you're making $10k/year and get another $10k from basic income, you'll be much better off even if somehow there is significant inflation. Basic income isn't a magic wand to make everyone richer. It's an efficient way of guaranteeing that everyone can cover their basic needs, without the inefficiencies and harmful incentives of the current system.