3 ms·

This is Y Combinator giving people money, not a state actor. It is probably(or should be) unconstitutional for the US to provide basic income, though the state

This is Y Combinator giving people money, not a state actor. It is probably(or should be) unconstitutional for the US to provide basic income, though the state of California might be able to.

wmf 10y ago
The production version of basic income is clearly government-based. YC is doing a private beta to decide whether to lobby governments to provide basic income.
stevens32 10y ago
What's the argument for basic income through government being unconstitutional?
dragonwriter 10y ago
Basic income (including its funding stream) can be implemented as an income tax with a fixed refundable credit per qualified individual [0], so its unmistakably exactly as Constitutional as federal income tax. [0] E.g., if you decide that the UBI goes to all adult citizens and legal permanent residents, then that's the population that gets the credit.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  They certainly have the power to collect the tax money required, and the Social Security SCOTUS case(Helvering v. Davis) sets a pretty good starting point for their power to spend. I'd argue that while they have the power to spend the money on a wide variety of social programs(per the General Welfare clause), they don't have the power to redistribute income since it doesn't have a designated purpose. Spending is an exchange of money for services or goods, while UBI would just be an exchange of money. Even if redistribution was considered a type of spending, the case mentions specific facts that harmed the elderly(employee age limits being the main one). If these mattered to the original case, then giving UBI to young people who choose not to work should be a weaker case, which makes it reasonable for SCOTUS to disagree at least on those examples. Social Security is a combination of a forced retirement savings plan and a delayed redistribution of income. I don't know if anyone has argued that the redistribution part alone is unconstitutional, but the forced savings part comes from the payout increasing as you put more money in. A UBI would be entirely a redistribution. A similar argument might apply to cases where the EITC causes a net benefit to be given to someone, but: A. The government could argue that the EITC is intended to benefit the poor, which seems similar to arguing that Social Security benefits the elderly and B. I don't know if anyone has standing to bring a suit, since those cases are probably rare and the damages would be small.

This is Y Combinator giving people money, not a state actor. It is probably(or should be) unconstitutional for the US to provide basic income, though the state of California might be able to.

wmf 10y ago

The production version of basic income is clearly government-based. YC is doing a private beta to decide whether to lobby governments to provide basic income.

stevens32 10y ago

What's the argument for basic income through government being unconstitutional?

dragonwriter 10y ago

Basic income (including its funding stream) can be implemented as an income tax with a fixed refundable credit per qualified individual [0], so its unmistakably exactly as Constitutional as federal income tax. [0] E.g., if you decide that the UBI goes to all adult citizens and legal permanent residents, then that's the population that gets the credit.

MichaelBurge 10y ago
They certainly have the power to collect the tax money required, and the Social Security SCOTUS case(Helvering v. Davis) sets a pretty good starting point for their power to spend. I'd argue that while they have the power to spend the money on a wide variety of social programs(per the General Welfare clause), they don't have the power to redistribute income since it doesn't have a designated purpose. Spending is an exchange of money for services or goods, while UBI would just be an exchange of money. Even if redistribution was considered a type of spending, the case mentions specific facts that harmed the elderly(employee age limits being the main one). If these mattered to the original case, then giving UBI to young people who choose not to work should be a weaker case, which makes it reasonable for SCOTUS to disagree at least on those examples. Social Security is a combination of a forced retirement savings plan and a delayed redistribution of income. I don't know if anyone has argued that the redistribution part alone is unconstitutional, but the forced savings part comes from the payout increasing as you put more money in. A UBI would be entirely a redistribution. A similar argument might apply to cases where the EITC causes a net benefit to be given to someone, but: A. The government could argue that the EITC is intended to benefit the poor, which seems similar to arguing that Social Security benefits the elderly and B. I don't know if anyone has standing to bring a suit, since those cases are probably rare and the damages would be small.