4 ms·

I've never really understood basic income. Why give everyone free money? Why not just give the people who need things the things they need? Is this really an e

• azernik 8y ago
  Because knowing what people need requires an expensive and error-prone system. Most people know what they need and will go buy it given the money to do so - the joy of fungible assets!
  • commandlinefan 8y ago
    I don't know, knowing what people need actually seems easier than knowing how much (variable value) money they'll need to buy it. A person's required caloric intake hasn't changed since 1970. Incomes have.
    • azernik 8y ago
      That's a relatively simple case, that a developed country's welfare system does indeed handle well. But what about transportation, housing, education, entertainment? The list is long.
  • JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > knowing what people need requires an expensive and error-prone system Unemployment provisioning in the United States is relatively inexpensive. I wonder if the administrative savings are being overstated, having been estimated before governments digitized such things.
    • azernik 8y ago
      That happens to be a case where it's easy to get an eligibility list (I think there are a lot of such cases). But the way in which aid is distributed is still just plain cash.
    • dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Unemployment provisioning in the United States is relatively inexpensive. UI isn't about identifying very specific needs, it's about identifying a particular easy to assess monetary need and meeting some of it: people whose lifestyle is adapted to the income provided by their job, without it, need an income roughly comparable to the take-home income from their job. That's pretty much the easiest need assessment in public safety net programs.
  • tabeth 8y ago
    Is it that error prone? Could people not just submit what their own opinion and then you aggregate it systematically?
• macinjosh 8y ago
  Who determines what is a need vs. not a need? Giving money gives them the choice to determine their own needs and their own priorities.
  • mattnewton 8y ago
    And eliminates a costly bureaucracy layer making these purchasing decisions for people with not-their-money
    • estebank 8y ago
      Something to consider (trying not to color the argument with my own opinion): if you conceive of UBI as a replacement for the social net, what's to be done with people whose income is not enough to cover their expenses? This has to consider both people that blow their income and people that have special needs due to a medical condition (wheelchair and other mobility tools, accessible housing, costly medicine, live-in nurse, etc.). If you say cover the latter with special supplementary income/resources, what do you do with the former? Leave them become homeless (and potentially end up in the second group, as they get sick)?
      • mattnewton 8y ago
        That’s a really good question and it shows how little has really been fleshed out at this point (at least in my mind). I think the state still has a role to play making purchasing decisions for some; for example, incapacitated people should probably be purchasing healthcare that revives them in most cases, and the state should make the decision there that hospitals should just do so. Where you draw the line where the person isn’t capable of make the decision? I would favor very far into the personal responsibility myself, but I bet there are really good humanitarian and efficiency arguments for a different line that has the state interviene at an earlier point.
• mikeash 8y ago
  Deciding who needs things has huge overhead, both in terms of administration and politics. It can also have unintended consequences, for example the various poverty traps in the US system where you can end up poorer when you get a raise or a better job, because you lose more benefits than the money you gain. Just giving to everyone is much simpler. The bet is that this simplicity overcomes the higher cost.
• whytaka 8y ago
  The quick dirty answers: 1) Because determining eligibility has administrative costs. 2) Because if you have a job that pays you well enough, you're basically just getting your money back.
  • keithnz 8y ago
    actually on 2, in reality your tax goes up (to pay for UBI) so you either are in the same position or worse off the higher your income is.
• Nursie 8y ago
  No means testing. No huge bureaucracy. And a definite cut in sore feelings towards welfare claimants, because everyone gets the same.
• cbhl 8y ago
  It is expensive to figure out the difference between who needs things and who is just good with paperwork ("means testing"). Also, people who need help with basic survival have the least ability to jump through paperwork hoops.
• adrusi 8y ago
  Because then when people go from being people who need things enough that we give them those things to being people who need things slightly less, we stop giving them things. To take a simplified example, if someone needs to be unemployed to qualify for welfare, then while they're unemployed they get support from the state. But let's say they find a job. Now they lose their support from the state. If they job that they get only lets them get the things they need, then they've gone from getting all the things they need and having a bunch of free time, to getting all the things they need and having to work full-time. Who would choose to do that? Giving people who need things the things they need just tells them to not look for employment. Another problem is how we're supposed to decide what people need. Why not just give people money and let them decide what they need. You'll need some system to handle those who fail to satisfy their basic needs due to problems of mental health (including addiction), but most people are better at deciding what they need for themselves than a bureaucrat is.
  • tabeth 8y ago
    > Another problem is how we're supposed to decide what people need. Why not just give people money and let them decide what they need. You'll need some system to handle those who fail to satisfy their basic needs due to problems of mental health (including addiction), but most people are better at deciding what they need for themselves than a bureaucrat is. Sure. However there are concerns to where this money would come from and how much should be given.
• darawk 8y ago
  Several reasons, in descending order of importance: 1. Cliff effects. If you receive $1000/month while unemployed, and you have the opportunity to take a job that pays $1250/month, the actual delta is now only $250, which may not exceed your threshold. A basic income doesn't go away when you get a job. 2. Administrative costs. Figuring out who needs what costs money, can be gamed, and creates bad political incentives (pandering either to the group that wants more welfare, or the group that's upset about paying for peoples welfare). 3. Fairness. Some people feel that it is unfair that the poor receive monetary benefits from the government just because they are poor. If everyone gets the same benefit, unconditionally, that may be more palatable to this group of people.
  • tabeth 8y ago
    Thanks for the reply: 1. This is an implementation problem. Hardly inherent to the idea. 2. Sure there are administrative costs. There also costs to giving everyone X amount of money, especially when a large percentage of them don't need it to begin with. 3. Indeed there is fairness. However since everyone receives it everyone's relative position is unchanged. So the question is, if giving everyone money somehow helps everyone, why not give everyone more? To what point does this end?
    • darawk 8y ago
      > 1. This is an implementation problem. Hardly inherent to the idea. I wouldn't call it an implementation problem per se. How would you fix this with regards to current welfare, without implementing a UBI-equivalent, for instance? > 2. Sure there are administrative costs. There also costs to giving everyone X amount of money, especially when a large percentage of them don't need it to begin with. This is a bit of an empirical question, of course. But I think the argument would be that money spent on administrative costs is pure waste, but money distributed to citizens is not. > 3. Indeed there is fairness. However since everyone receives it everyone's relative position is unchanged. So the question is, if giving everyone money somehow helps everyone, why not give everyone more? To what point does this end? Indeed their relative positions are unchanged, but the distribution is squished. Giving a poor person $1000 might increase their wealth 100%. Giving $100 to a rich person might only increase it 0.001%.
• knicholes 8y ago
  The Mormons do this. A [EDIT: anyone, not just a member] ~church member~ will go to the bishop (a volunteer-filled calling) and tell them their situation. Then the bishop will provide what they need. This may be rent money or it may be a shopping list for the Bishops Storehouse (https://providentliving.lds.org/bishops-storehouse?lang=eng https://providentliving.lds.org/bishops-storehouse?lang=eng). I'm pretty sure the assistance is not conditional, but the bishop will exercise discretion and help guide the recipient towards self-reliance.
• aqme28 8y ago
  In addition to the problem of figuring out who is or isn't needy, is the fact that your system disincentivizes work.
  • tabeth 8y ago
    Nothing about what I said inherently disincentivizes work.
    • keithnz 8y ago
      in fact the article implies that Finland is more interested in a targeted model instead of the UBI. I think UBI has a philosophical appeal, but the practicalities and economic viability I think still favors a targeted model
• oldcynic 8y ago
  Isn't that at risk of becoming the worst of a planned economy? We've already seen plenty scope for fraud with benefit systems with voucher schemes, fraudulent claims, multiple claims, problems getting back into work, etc. Governments can use it as an easy target to save money (those in need don't have large lobby groups), so will disproportionately bear the brunt of cuts. Basic income is given to everyone. All you need do is prove citizenship so it's orders of magnitude cheaper to manage, and should be far less vulnerable to fraud. No weeks waiting on a claim when circumstance changes, no prosecutions because you didnt report being back at work correctly or fast enough. If govt cuts basic income they will also be cutting income of veterans and those in work - more noticeable, and with a little time, less politically expedient. It has the bonus of minimising govt involvement and punishments for those who had the misfortune to get ill or be unable to work etc. OK, so we just give people the things they need. Who decides? e.g. People need food - give them "approved" food, regardless of whether it's things they like or dislike intensely. Every week they get things they will not use because govt says they "need" it. Giving people food is expensive - give them seconds and rejects from retail. Why not out of date? Give the nationwide contract to the cheapest bidder. Those in need eventually get to live off the modern day equivalent of gruel. (See prison and school catering contracts) Why not just put them in the workhouse and be done with it?
  • tabeth 8y ago
    > All you need do is prove citizenship Isn't this ripe for fraud as well? Your rebuttals are implementation details. The questions remains, as an abstract idea, is it better to give everyone money or give those who need things the things they need?
    • dragonwriter 8y ago
      > The questions remains, as an abstract idea, is it better to give everyone money or give those who need things the things they need? That depends on the level of abstraction; if you get abstract enough to ignore all the real world problems with central planning, sure, the latter seems abstractly better. Giving everyone money isn't an abstract alternative to giving people who need things what they need, it's a solution to get closer to that abstract goal given the concrete implementation problems with centralized need determination approaches.
• bsder 8y ago
  > Why not just give the people who need things the things they need? We already have this. It turns out that you wind up with lots of overlapping bureaucracies that waste far more of the money than any fraudulent usages that you actually catch. It's like drug testing people on assistance, it turns out that poor people use drugs less than the population at large. Funny that. > Is this really an economic problem or a cultural one? Yes to both. The cultural problem, at least in the US, is that the politics of the Southern Strategy (ie. racial politics in the South) have made this into "How dare those undeserving so-and-sos get free money?" instead of "How many genuinely needy people did we help with the limited resources we have and can we help more?" One other thing that a basic income affects is that you may find people willing to relocate to very low cost of living area with high unemployment since they know that they can survive even if they don't have a job. That can kickstart bringing the unemployment rate down because you wind up with a critical mass of people and those people need services. There are lots of good possibilities. I'm hoping more experiments like this get tried out as some form of UBI is going to be required in the very near future when automation has replaced most manual labor jobs.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• jakelazaroff 8y ago
  > In a world with targeted advertising and unprecedented advertising I'm confident basic income would be counter productive for those who actually need it. Forgive me if this wasn't your intention, but it seems like you're asserting that poorer people are uniquely unable to determine their needs? > If giving everyone X works, why not 2X? 3X? The amount you give people relative to their income in aggregate affects the economy, right? If you gave everyone $12,000 a year, the consequences would be vastly different than if you gave everyone $12,000,000,000,000 a year.
  • tabeth 8y ago
    > Forgive me if this wasn't your intention, but it seems like you're asserting that poorer people are uniquely unable to determine their needs? I'm asserting people in general are unable to determine their needs. Every year worldwide consumer debt just keeps going up and up. This would imply either an inability to save or insufficient wages, right? UBI would increase the wages, but it's not clear to me why things wouldn't become more expensive. > The amount you give people relative to their income in aggregate affects the economy, right? If you gave everyone $12,000 a year, the consequences would be vastly different than if you gave everyone $12,000,000,000,000 a year. Sure, but regardless of the amount. Why not give them twice as much? Ultimately UBI is fiscally absurd.