6 ms·

The idea of universal basic income is to end the practice of means-testing; that is, design a social safety net that requires -less- government intervention int

The idea of universal basic income is to end the practice of means-testing; that is, design a social safety net that requires -less- government intervention into your life. You receive a basic income for life, and what you do with it is your freedom to choose. Yes, it may require higher taxes or new taxes like a carbon tax or land value tax. But is higher taxes == more government intervention?

petra 10y ago
All this talk about basic income is so vague. It's almost some sort of a political maneuver. Let's talk numbers: to give every adult in the us a BI of $25k/yr , would require $5T. Current tax base of the US is $1T.
- imgabe 10y ago
  I think it works best as a negative income tax. If you make no money, you get a refundable credit up to, say $25k/year. This would phase out as you earn income, so that once you're earning over $25k you're paying in and not getting the credit. This way people still have an incentive to work if they want more, but they won't starve if they earn less. This way you're not giving a flat $25k to someone who's already earning $100k. But if that person loses their job, they'll still get enough to live on.
  - petra 10y ago
    Without a reasonable estimate on how much money that will require that's still very vague.
  - adangert 10y ago
    True but you don't want to incentivize not working though
    - ant6n 10y ago
      The incentive to work comes from making the basic income "minimal", but also from allowing people to keep the first couple of thousand they make. Right now if you receive welfare, and you make a dollar, you lose a dollar of welfare. That's the actual disincentive to work.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      Actually, you (they) kinda do want to incentivise not working. The idea is that, currently, "not working" is dis-incentivised to such a degree that it creates more problems than it solves. Consider: - For currently unemployed people: are they lacking in motivation, or in ability? - For people who legitimately cannot find employment: is it moral to expose them to policies aimed at punishing 'freeloaders'? - Considering existing work-requirements even for basic assistance with food and housing: is it correct to say these operate from a model of human motivation where people stop trying as soon as they can afford the basic necessities of life? - Do you stop trying as soon as you know you have enough food and a roof over your head for the foreseeable future? - Do you know anybody who does that? - If people are forced into jobs with the thread of starvation or homelessness, what are the trade-offs they are required to make? I. e. to what degree is this forcing short-termism, and hindering their ability to invest time into, for example, education? - To what degree does the looming threat of starvation compromise the position of low-income workers in negotiations with employers? - Consider some model citizen from the lower middle class that you can think of: maybe a factory worker from the midwest, or an accountant's clerk in Houston, whatever... They have been gainfully employed for all their (adult) life, and will be for the foreseeable future. Question: How much needless anxiety is that person possibly experiencing, because they are just some random economic events away from complete destitution? - To what degree could society profit by mitigating some of the risks associated with attempting something new?
  - chumali 10y ago
    If the amount you receive is inversely proportional to how much you earn then this effectively creates a marginal tax on earnings, therefore creating a disincentive to seek further employment for fear of losing existing benefits. This is one of the main problems UBI seeks to address by not being means tested like current benefits. If instead of phasing out the earned credit for any earnings below $25k/year it was just withdrawn above that threshold (an effective marginal tax rate of 100% beteen $25k-$50k/year) then you would get clustering of incomes at just under $25k/year with no incomes between $25k-$50k/year. Potentially you could phase it out starting at $25k as arguably the incentive effects are less pronounced at higher incomes. Obviously this could not be considered universal however.
    - jfoutz 10y ago
      As a concrete example, the original formulation was a 2 for 1 tax credit. Let's say taxes are 10% if BI is $1000 dollars, and you earn no money, you get $1000. if you earn $500, ($50 in taxes), you get 2 for one credits, so that pulls $25 out of your 1000, you take home $500 for working, and $975 for BI. if you earn $100000, $10000 in taxes, you get a 2 for one credit, so only $8000 in taxes. BI makes it always better to earn some money. People always seem to forget the tax credit side, and assume we're just writing everyone a check.
    - imgabe 10y ago
      I think I get what you're saying, and that's the problem with the hard cutoffs we have for aid now. Wouldn't it be solved by just making it completely smooth up to 25k/year? If you earn $0, you get $25k. If you earn $10k, you get $15k If you earn $24999, you get a $1 credit. Anything $25k and up, you get 0 credits, with a progressive tax scheme to support the above. I guess it's not "universal" per se, but the only means testing would be to figure out how much income you made, which the government already does in the course of collecting income taxes anyway.
      - schrodinger 10y ago
        What's the point in taking a $10k a year job in that hypothetical implementation?
- Declanomous 10y ago
  Why would you give every adult in the united states a basic income of $25K a year when the poverty line in the continental US is ~$12K? $25k a year is about the poverty line for a family of four.
  - petra 10y ago
    So it's still $2.5tn . And people at the poverty line get state support(Medicare , etc) . So that's more money.
    - ant6n 10y ago
      You should only count the people who are at our slightly above the proverty line. The rest have their basic income absorbed by their taxes.
      - petra 10y ago
        >> The rest have their basic income absorbed by their taxes. Isn't this whole notion of BI dependent on the political support of a large share of Americans who think they'll get money - and now you're saying they won't ? Or in other words - why aren't talking about unemployment insurance that doesn't forces you to work ? because that's what's your offer is.
        tormeh 10y ago
        Well, you could structure the income tax so that you'll have to pay the BI back, if you earn above whatever. Sure, there's no difference at the end of the year, but it should be easier to sell.
        ant6n 10y ago
        BI is not dependent on the political support of Americans. Americans don't even have universal health care, so BI will probably be implemented somewhere more progressive. BI is not the same as unemployment insurance, because that would require you to work beforehand. It's also not the same because with every dollar you earn, you loose the same dollar from your unemployment insurance. BI would mean that the first couple of thousand of dollars you earn, you will keep. Essentially it provides an incentive for those on welfare or unemployment to engage in at least some work, because they can keep that money.
- RightMillennial 10y ago
  It is awfully peculiar that universal basic income is so readily touted here. If there is even the slightest hint of monetary compensation in an article or comment, someone has to chime in saying basic income is the solution. While the crucial point you bring up about actually funding it is usually brushed aside.
- hacker_9 10y ago
  Tax the robots!
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Are you trying to start or end a conversation with these figures? I've noticed a trend where someone thinks that some napkin math ends a conversation, and it seems a bit like scientism to me. For example, many BI schemes I've seen discussed assume that most people with jobs will be taxed to reclaim the UBI and the actual benefit is for people trying to get out of poverty who aren't trapped by egregious equivalent tax rates where they lose 2 dollars of benefits for every extra dollar they earn and so rationally decide that working less is more financially rewarded. Why don't you run the numbers for that?
  - petra 10y ago
    I'm trying to start a conversation, but a less vague one(although to be sincere, I'm doubtful about basic income - I think the same goals(which are great) , if possible to reach, would require something far more complex, both on the giving money side, but also on structuring the economy in certain ways that would reduce the cost of living) But could you please share some numbers for those offers you proposed - they'll be interesting to hear.
- rsnag 10y ago
  It's not only about income but also reduced living expenses. In 30 years, my electricity bill, water bill and food costs should be substantially less. If automation takes over, human labor is going to have to be redirected at the household and community level.
- tryitnow 10y ago
  Good point. I personally support a basic income, but I also accept that it would require massive tax increases. It seems like a lot of the pro-BI rhetoric out there just waves away any serious fiscal concerns.
  - alexqgb 10y ago
    It a world where economies, political systems, and even entire ecologies are being horribly degraded by historically extreme concentrations of wealth, a massive tax hike is a feature, not a bug. Some may ignore this aspect of UBI programs, to others it's just as important as the social security and well-distributed economic base that UBI provides. "But...but redistribution!" Yeah, about that. Unless you've been protesting the massive policy-driven upward redistribution of wealth that's happened over the past three decades, your position probably isn't as principled as you imagine. More on the specifics of how the great grift worked can be found here https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-07/how-middle-class-america-got-fleeced https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-07/how-middl...
    - jjt-yn_t 10y ago
      So promulgate and make certain a UBI, but roll back based on new concentration of wealth within the upper quadrile than the lower three quadriles itself reversing course so that "oh, we do not need the UBI any more because", where is that Congress of sorts, excluding the upper quadrile, and specifically its mailing address? Because based on my two posts above, approximate number, I would like to make myself useful rather than a glance at the sayings of the upper quadrile, glance at the sayings of the three lower quadriles, and once-a-lower-quadrile-for certain and now all over the map depending upon which UBI I should maybe be entitled to unless I am recused for being a spokesperson for that lower three quadriles, another way to make Dad proud of me were he still living. Or something. [ if the reader of this reply will forgive me, I am not certain if I am agreeing or disagreeing with the post to which I am replying, but confirming to myself that I can post within YN as a new skillset. Critiques welcome, but probably will not reach me as I doubt to read this same thread tomorrow. Doubly apologetic. Thanks.
- Mz 10y ago
  Let's talk other concerns, like inflation and housing. Many of the people who are most in need of help would be fine if we brought back genuinely affordable housing AND if size and cost of housing keeps going up and up, no amount of basic income guarantees any kind of real security. If you print enough money to issue a UBI, you will have massive inflation, devaluing the amount they are being given. It creates a situation where no amount is ever enough. But if we can inject genuinely affordable housing back into the system, a thing that is practically extinct, then even losers with a part-time, minimum wage job should be okay. (And don't bust my chops about using the word losers. I am homeless. It is not me looking down my nose at other people, JFC.)
losteric 10y ago
Our society isn't mature enough for basic income to be viable... it's going to take many decades to get there. Let's focus on education and healthcare first. An effective universal education and healthcare system could be the foundation for BI in the distant future (both socially and politically).

petra 10y ago

All this talk about basic income is so vague. It's almost some sort of a political maneuver. Let's talk numbers: to give every adult in the us a BI of $25k/yr , would require $5T. Current tax base of the US is $1T.

imgabe 10y ago
I think it works best as a negative income tax. If you make no money, you get a refundable credit up to, say $25k/year. This would phase out as you earn income, so that once you're earning over $25k you're paying in and not getting the credit. This way people still have an incentive to work if they want more, but they won't starve if they earn less. This way you're not giving a flat $25k to someone who's already earning $100k. But if that person loses their job, they'll still get enough to live on.
- petra 10y ago
  Without a reasonable estimate on how much money that will require that's still very vague.
- adangert 10y ago
  True but you don't want to incentivize not working though
  - ant6n 10y ago
    The incentive to work comes from making the basic income "minimal", but also from allowing people to keep the first couple of thousand they make. Right now if you receive welfare, and you make a dollar, you lose a dollar of welfare. That's the actual disincentive to work.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    Actually, you (they) kinda do want to incentivise not working. The idea is that, currently, "not working" is dis-incentivised to such a degree that it creates more problems than it solves. Consider: - For currently unemployed people: are they lacking in motivation, or in ability? - For people who legitimately cannot find employment: is it moral to expose them to policies aimed at punishing 'freeloaders'? - Considering existing work-requirements even for basic assistance with food and housing: is it correct to say these operate from a model of human motivation where people stop trying as soon as they can afford the basic necessities of life? - Do you stop trying as soon as you know you have enough food and a roof over your head for the foreseeable future? - Do you know anybody who does that? - If people are forced into jobs with the thread of starvation or homelessness, what are the trade-offs they are required to make? I. e. to what degree is this forcing short-termism, and hindering their ability to invest time into, for example, education? - To what degree does the looming threat of starvation compromise the position of low-income workers in negotiations with employers? - Consider some model citizen from the lower middle class that you can think of: maybe a factory worker from the midwest, or an accountant's clerk in Houston, whatever... They have been gainfully employed for all their (adult) life, and will be for the foreseeable future. Question: How much needless anxiety is that person possibly experiencing, because they are just some random economic events away from complete destitution? - To what degree could society profit by mitigating some of the risks associated with attempting something new?
- chumali 10y ago
  If the amount you receive is inversely proportional to how much you earn then this effectively creates a marginal tax on earnings, therefore creating a disincentive to seek further employment for fear of losing existing benefits. This is one of the main problems UBI seeks to address by not being means tested like current benefits. If instead of phasing out the earned credit for any earnings below $25k/year it was just withdrawn above that threshold (an effective marginal tax rate of 100% beteen $25k-$50k/year) then you would get clustering of incomes at just under $25k/year with no incomes between $25k-$50k/year. Potentially you could phase it out starting at $25k as arguably the incentive effects are less pronounced at higher incomes. Obviously this could not be considered universal however.
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    As a concrete example, the original formulation was a 2 for 1 tax credit. Let's say taxes are 10% if BI is $1000 dollars, and you earn no money, you get $1000. if you earn $500, ($50 in taxes), you get 2 for one credits, so that pulls $25 out of your 1000, you take home $500 for working, and $975 for BI. if you earn $100000, $10000 in taxes, you get a 2 for one credit, so only $8000 in taxes. BI makes it always better to earn some money. People always seem to forget the tax credit side, and assume we're just writing everyone a check.
  - imgabe 10y ago
    I think I get what you're saying, and that's the problem with the hard cutoffs we have for aid now. Wouldn't it be solved by just making it completely smooth up to 25k/year? If you earn $0, you get $25k. If you earn $10k, you get $15k If you earn $24999, you get a $1 credit. Anything $25k and up, you get 0 credits, with a progressive tax scheme to support the above. I guess it's not "universal" per se, but the only means testing would be to figure out how much income you made, which the government already does in the course of collecting income taxes anyway.
    - schrodinger 10y ago
      What's the point in taking a $10k a year job in that hypothetical implementation?
Declanomous 10y ago
Why would you give every adult in the united states a basic income of $25K a year when the poverty line in the continental US is ~$12K? $25k a year is about the poverty line for a family of four.
- petra 10y ago
  So it's still $2.5tn . And people at the poverty line get state support(Medicare , etc) . So that's more money.
  - ant6n 10y ago
    You should only count the people who are at our slightly above the proverty line. The rest have their basic income absorbed by their taxes.
    - petra 10y ago
      >> The rest have their basic income absorbed by their taxes. Isn't this whole notion of BI dependent on the political support of a large share of Americans who think they'll get money - and now you're saying they won't ? Or in other words - why aren't talking about unemployment insurance that doesn't forces you to work ? because that's what's your offer is.
      - tormeh 10y ago
        Well, you could structure the income tax so that you'll have to pay the BI back, if you earn above whatever. Sure, there's no difference at the end of the year, but it should be easier to sell.
      - ant6n 10y ago
        BI is not dependent on the political support of Americans. Americans don't even have universal health care, so BI will probably be implemented somewhere more progressive. BI is not the same as unemployment insurance, because that would require you to work beforehand. It's also not the same because with every dollar you earn, you loose the same dollar from your unemployment insurance. BI would mean that the first couple of thousand of dollars you earn, you will keep. Essentially it provides an incentive for those on welfare or unemployment to engage in at least some work, because they can keep that money.
RightMillennial 10y ago
It is awfully peculiar that universal basic income is so readily touted here. If there is even the slightest hint of monetary compensation in an article or comment, someone has to chime in saying basic income is the solution. While the crucial point you bring up about actually funding it is usually brushed aside.
hacker_9 10y ago
Tax the robots!
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Are you trying to start or end a conversation with these figures? I've noticed a trend where someone thinks that some napkin math ends a conversation, and it seems a bit like scientism to me. For example, many BI schemes I've seen discussed assume that most people with jobs will be taxed to reclaim the UBI and the actual benefit is for people trying to get out of poverty who aren't trapped by egregious equivalent tax rates where they lose 2 dollars of benefits for every extra dollar they earn and so rationally decide that working less is more financially rewarded. Why don't you run the numbers for that?
- petra 10y ago
  I'm trying to start a conversation, but a less vague one(although to be sincere, I'm doubtful about basic income - I think the same goals(which are great) , if possible to reach, would require something far more complex, both on the giving money side, but also on structuring the economy in certain ways that would reduce the cost of living) But could you please share some numbers for those offers you proposed - they'll be interesting to hear.
rsnag 10y ago
It's not only about income but also reduced living expenses. In 30 years, my electricity bill, water bill and food costs should be substantially less. If automation takes over, human labor is going to have to be redirected at the household and community level.
tryitnow 10y ago
Good point. I personally support a basic income, but I also accept that it would require massive tax increases. It seems like a lot of the pro-BI rhetoric out there just waves away any serious fiscal concerns.
- alexqgb 10y ago
  It a world where economies, political systems, and even entire ecologies are being horribly degraded by historically extreme concentrations of wealth, a massive tax hike is a feature, not a bug. Some may ignore this aspect of UBI programs, to others it's just as important as the social security and well-distributed economic base that UBI provides. "But...but redistribution!" Yeah, about that. Unless you've been protesting the massive policy-driven upward redistribution of wealth that's happened over the past three decades, your position probably isn't as principled as you imagine. More on the specifics of how the great grift worked can be found here https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-07/how-middle-class-america-got-fleeced https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-07/how-middl...
  - jjt-yn_t 10y ago
    So promulgate and make certain a UBI, but roll back based on new concentration of wealth within the upper quadrile than the lower three quadriles itself reversing course so that "oh, we do not need the UBI any more because", where is that Congress of sorts, excluding the upper quadrile, and specifically its mailing address? Because based on my two posts above, approximate number, I would like to make myself useful rather than a glance at the sayings of the upper quadrile, glance at the sayings of the three lower quadriles, and once-a-lower-quadrile-for certain and now all over the map depending upon which UBI I should maybe be entitled to unless I am recused for being a spokesperson for that lower three quadriles, another way to make Dad proud of me were he still living. Or something. [ if the reader of this reply will forgive me, I am not certain if I am agreeing or disagreeing with the post to which I am replying, but confirming to myself that I can post within YN as a new skillset. Critiques welcome, but probably will not reach me as I doubt to read this same thread tomorrow. Doubly apologetic. Thanks.
Mz 10y ago
Let's talk other concerns, like inflation and housing. Many of the people who are most in need of help would be fine if we brought back genuinely affordable housing AND if size and cost of housing keeps going up and up, no amount of basic income guarantees any kind of real security. If you print enough money to issue a UBI, you will have massive inflation, devaluing the amount they are being given. It creates a situation where no amount is ever enough. But if we can inject genuinely affordable housing back into the system, a thing that is practically extinct, then even losers with a part-time, minimum wage job should be okay. (And don't bust my chops about using the word losers. I am homeless. It is not me looking down my nose at other people, JFC.)

losteric 10y ago

Our society isn't mature enough for basic income to be viable... it's going to take many decades to get there. Let's focus on education and healthcare first. An effective universal education and healthcare system could be the foundation for BI in the distant future (both socially and politically).