4 ms·

UBI is welfare with a different name. The results will be the same. Some people will sit on their asses and never work a single day but the majority of the pop

by slackingoff2017 9y ago

UBI is welfare with a different name. The results will be the same. Some people will sit on their asses and never work a single day but the majority of the population would keep working. The extra money would become meaningless because prices would adjust to accommodate it. We have to keep in mind that you can't just create money and hand it out and make everyone rich. If everyone had 10x as much money prices would end up going up 10x. The supply of real goods you can use that money for hasn't changed. The huge increase in demand would lead to a supply crunch and much higher prices. The money we're giving out for UBI has to be taken from someone else. What UBI is calling for is wealth redistribution, something I'm in favor of. But people seem to think it's magic around here. If we pillaged the top 1% and distributed their wealth evenly the entire rest of the population would get close to a 100% raise. That's how filthy rich the top 1% are.

GavinMcG 9y ago
> The extra money would become meaningless because prices would adjust to accommodate it. That's not actually supported in the literature.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  I mean, it is the case if UBI contributes to inflation, which it clearly would. Literature or no literature, if the money supply increases, prices will increase unless efficiency improves faster.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    The lack of inflation following QE casts doubt on such a simplified model. But in any case, you don't have to inflate to have UBI. Just tax money a bit when it gets distributed to shareholders.
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      > Just tax money a bit when it gets distributed to shareholders. Well, that would factor in as a depression of dividends for all stocks; that would only reduce the value of holding stocks, sounds like it would backfire tremendously. Then you have the issue of whether or not to tax dividends to foreign-held stocks: if you tax disbursements, it would compound some countries' taxes and ultimately reduce the value of holding american stocks; if you don't tax foreign disbursements, then the people you're looking to tax would set up their holdings somewhere without a dividend tax. I'm wondering how you think this could work.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        Right, first I need to state that I would increase the income tax; anyone making about $100k would essentially pay extra as much as they received from UBI, and people making more would end up paying more than they'd get from UBI. So the tax on dividends would just serve to cover the gap, not the full amount.
    - lazulicurio 9y ago
      There's been plenty of inflation post-QE, just not in the CPI[1]. Housing prices post-crash are higher than ever, fueled by still-easy access to financing. Healthcare is up. Education is up. People are just taking the money that was shoved into the economy by QE and low interest rates, and using it for capital expenditures and investments instead of consumer goods. There's so much supply of consumer goods that the money is flowing to places where demand can't be met as easily. [1] For example, the CPI tracks "owner's equivalent of rent" instead of raw housing prices https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheet-owners-equivalent-rent-and-rent.pdf https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheet-owners-equivalent-rent-and...
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    >>Literature or no literature, if the money supply increases, prices will increase unless efficiency improves faster. No. This is one of the pitfalls of economics: overly simplistic models that don't (can't) properly account for external factors, and assume everyone has perfect information and behaves rationally. The real world does not work that way.
- slackingoff2017 9y ago
  The value of any currency is how much real stuff you can buy with it. If there's 20% more dollars in circulation each one would be worth 20% less. This is why UBI is wealth distribution. Too keep the UBI money from being worthless it can't be printed money, it needs to be money taken from someone else.
  - tpallarino 9y ago
    It's not quite equal due to factors such as money velocity and liquidity. There's also the question of improved productivity/etc. to be had from this redistribution, which would increase effective buying power.
microcolonel 9y ago
> If we pillaged the top 1% and distributed their wealth evenly the entire rest of the population would get close to a 100% raise. That's how filthy rich the top 1% are. The problem with this, of course, is that the rich would simply leave. They are the most attractive to rob, and the best prepared to escape. In addition, "the 1%" is not an exclusive club; most people (currently) have a pretty good chance of entering the 1% at some point in their life, most in the 1% have a very good chance of exiting it.
- wott 9y ago
  > most people (currently) have a pretty good chance of entering the 1% at some point in their life I beg your pardon?
- s_kilk 9y ago
  > In addition, "the 1%" is not an exclusive club; most people (currently) have a pretty good chance of entering the 1% at some point in their life, most in the 1% have a very good chance of exiting it. You can't be serious. Social mobility (to the extent it ever existed) is way down over the past 40 years, and there's no sign of that trend reversing.
- lovich 9y ago
  That's a pretty bold claim about people's chance to enter and leave the 1%. Additionally there are only so many places to run to and its not like peoples money is all tied up in gold that can be smuggled out of the country anymore. It's pretty easy for governments to just put a block on their accounts if for some reason the wealthy decided they could make all of their money off of a society and then bounce when it came time to share in that same society
- stephenbez 9y ago
  I assume you meant the top 10%. In the US 56% of people will spend a year or more in the top 10%. 12% of people will spend a year or more in the top 1%. http://www.aei.org/publication/evidence-shows-significant-income-mobility-in-the-us-73-of-americans-were-in-the-top-20-for-at-least-a-year/print/ http://www.aei.org/publication/evidence-shows-significant-in...
nnd 9y ago
UBI is not welfare, it's by definition ubiquitous and unconditional. Welfare programs can and should exist in addition to UBI.

GavinMcG 9y ago

> The extra money would become meaningless because prices would adjust to accommodate it. That's not actually supported in the literature.

microcolonel 9y ago
I mean, it is the case if UBI contributes to inflation, which it clearly would. Literature or no literature, if the money supply increases, prices will increase unless efficiency improves faster.
- icebraining 9y ago
  The lack of inflation following QE casts doubt on such a simplified model. But in any case, you don't have to inflate to have UBI. Just tax money a bit when it gets distributed to shareholders.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > Just tax money a bit when it gets distributed to shareholders. Well, that would factor in as a depression of dividends for all stocks; that would only reduce the value of holding stocks, sounds like it would backfire tremendously. Then you have the issue of whether or not to tax dividends to foreign-held stocks: if you tax disbursements, it would compound some countries' taxes and ultimately reduce the value of holding american stocks; if you don't tax foreign disbursements, then the people you're looking to tax would set up their holdings somewhere without a dividend tax. I'm wondering how you think this could work.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Right, first I need to state that I would increase the income tax; anyone making about $100k would essentially pay extra as much as they received from UBI, and people making more would end up paying more than they'd get from UBI. So the tax on dividends would just serve to cover the gap, not the full amount.
  - lazulicurio 9y ago
    There's been plenty of inflation post-QE, just not in the CPI[1]. Housing prices post-crash are higher than ever, fueled by still-easy access to financing. Healthcare is up. Education is up. People are just taking the money that was shoved into the economy by QE and low interest rates, and using it for capital expenditures and investments instead of consumer goods. There's so much supply of consumer goods that the money is flowing to places where demand can't be met as easily. [1] For example, the CPI tracks "owner's equivalent of rent" instead of raw housing prices https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheet-owners-equivalent-rent-and-rent.pdf https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheet-owners-equivalent-rent-and...
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  >>Literature or no literature, if the money supply increases, prices will increase unless efficiency improves faster. No. This is one of the pitfalls of economics: overly simplistic models that don't (can't) properly account for external factors, and assume everyone has perfect information and behaves rationally. The real world does not work that way.
slackingoff2017 9y ago
The value of any currency is how much real stuff you can buy with it. If there's 20% more dollars in circulation each one would be worth 20% less. This is why UBI is wealth distribution. Too keep the UBI money from being worthless it can't be printed money, it needs to be money taken from someone else.
- tpallarino 9y ago
  It's not quite equal due to factors such as money velocity and liquidity. There's also the question of improved productivity/etc. to be had from this redistribution, which would increase effective buying power.

microcolonel 9y ago

> If we pillaged the top 1% and distributed their wealth evenly the entire rest of the population would get close to a 100% raise. That's how filthy rich the top 1% are. The problem with this, of course, is that the rich would simply leave. They are the most attractive to rob, and the best prepared to escape. In addition, "the 1%" is not an exclusive club; most people (currently) have a pretty good chance of entering the 1% at some point in their life, most in the 1% have a very good chance of exiting it.

wott 9y ago
> most people (currently) have a pretty good chance of entering the 1% at some point in their life I beg your pardon?
s_kilk 9y ago
> In addition, "the 1%" is not an exclusive club; most people (currently) have a pretty good chance of entering the 1% at some point in their life, most in the 1% have a very good chance of exiting it. You can't be serious. Social mobility (to the extent it ever existed) is way down over the past 40 years, and there's no sign of that trend reversing.
lovich 9y ago
That's a pretty bold claim about people's chance to enter and leave the 1%. Additionally there are only so many places to run to and its not like peoples money is all tied up in gold that can be smuggled out of the country anymore. It's pretty easy for governments to just put a block on their accounts if for some reason the wealthy decided they could make all of their money off of a society and then bounce when it came time to share in that same society
stephenbez 9y ago
I assume you meant the top 10%. In the US 56% of people will spend a year or more in the top 10%. 12% of people will spend a year or more in the top 1%. http://www.aei.org/publication/evidence-shows-significant-income-mobility-in-the-us-73-of-americans-were-in-the-top-20-for-at-least-a-year/print/ http://www.aei.org/publication/evidence-shows-significant-in...

nnd 9y ago

UBI is not welfare, it's by definition ubiquitous and unconditional. Welfare programs can and should exist in addition to UBI.