5 ms·

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 t

by darawk 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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%.

by darawk 9y ago

tabeth 9y 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 9y 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%.