4 ms·

That hypothesis offended the sensibilities of anyone who believes that all those who are able to work should do so. From each according to his ability, Comrade

by gaius 8y ago

That hypothesis offended the sensibilities of anyone who believes that all those who are able to work should do so. From each according to his ability, Comrade.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> From each according to his ability, Comrade. Soviet Communism is, indeed, terrible. But a UBI is basically the opposite of politburos and bread lines. And when the supply of unskilled labor exceeds the demand to such an extent that it no longer commands a living wage in a free market, what's your solution?
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  Has anyone run the numbers of how UBI would be financed? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to attack the idea. My impression is that people are more positive on UBI than they should be because they think it will enable a higher standard of living than it actually will. I would be more in favor of a jobs guarantee since I think people find working meaningful, but this isn't an area I've researched very much so I'm definitely open to changing my opinions if I learn more.
  - gaius 8y ago
    Has anyone run the numbers of how UBI would be financed? For the cost of the current welfare system in the UK we could give every man, woman and child £3000/year, approx. This assumes that the cost of administration is basically zero, so it would involve sacking all the employees of the DWP or whatever it’s called now. Well, they would be entitled to UBI too... it has to be “universal” and “basic” or the numbers don’t work
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Has anyone run the numbers of how UBI would be financed? There are different ways to do the accounting here. The opponents like to just add up the sum of everyone's UBI and call that the cost. But if someone pays $12,000 to fund the UBI and then receives a $10,000 UBI, the net cost to them is obviously $2000 rather than $12,000. Calculating the overall net cost is also not very useful, because it's effectively zero outside of some minimal administrative costs -- payments in equal payments out. Probably the sensible way to do it is to calculate the net loss to people who pay more than they receive, e.g. $2000 to someone who pays $12,000 and receives $10,000 but $0 (rather than -$2000) for someone who pays $8000 and receives $10,000. Using those numbers you end up somewhere in the ballpark of 25% of the cost calculated using the first method, because you take the total cost and subtract out the UBI the top half of the population is paying themselves, and then half the remainder for the bottom half, because people in the bottom half would be net recipients but would still on average be paying half as much as they receive. Whether this is exactly 25% depends on the income distribution within the population. It gets higher the more inequality there is. If everyone had exactly the same income it would be 0%. If there is great inequality it would be higher, i.e. more dollars transferred from richer to poorer. But that's kind of what you want. The most important factor in the cost is obviously the amount of the UBI. It can be made arbitrarily more or less expensive by changing that. > I would be more in favor of a jobs guarantee since I think people find working meaningful There are reasons to think that would be a bad idea, e.g.: http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic-jobs-against-hijacking-utopia/?comments=false http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic-... Moreover, half the point of a UBI is that it doesn't impose costs on working, unlike means-tested programs where earning money from working causes the loss of benefits. It's one of the things that allow it to operate productively even at below-subsistence payment levels. The highest paying job you're qualified to do may not pay enough to subsist on but becomes enough when combined with a modest UBI. And for someone who genuinely can't find full-time work, they're more likely to find meaning -- or a lead on gainful employment -- by volunteering somewhere of their choosing rather than being forced to dig holes and fill them back in with insufficient free time to improve themselves and get out of that situation.
    - IanDrake 8y ago
      I’m not sure why you’re doing mental gymnastics on this one. There is a simple answer. 300,000,000 - US population $12,000 - Your UBI amount Total cost: 3.6 trillion dollars. Projected US tax collection for 2019: 3.4 trillion. That’s not the US budget, just the amount not borrowed to pay for the budget. Cost of social programs that UBI would replace (in theory): 2.3 trillion. (SS, Medicare, other). I don’t think UBI could replace SS though. So you need to increase tax revenues about 33% if you look at it in the most favorable way. Then, when the bottom falls out for those who needed the full benifit of the programs you replaced, you will either bring those programs back or increase the UBI payment for everyone, which is easy to do because we’d just vote ourselves more money, because money is free.

by gaius 8y ago

That hypothesis offended the sensibilities of anyone who believes that all those who are able to work should do so. From each according to his ability, Comrade.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> From each according to his ability, Comrade. Soviet Communism is, indeed, terrible. But a UBI is basically the opposite of politburos and bread lines. And when the supply of unskilled labor exceeds the demand to such an extent that it no longer commands a living wage in a free market, what's your solution?

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
Has anyone run the numbers of how UBI would be financed? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to attack the idea. My impression is that people are more positive on UBI than they should be because they think it will enable a higher standard of living than it actually will. I would be more in favor of a jobs guarantee since I think people find working meaningful, but this isn't an area I've researched very much so I'm definitely open to changing my opinions if I learn more.
- gaius 8y ago
  Has anyone run the numbers of how UBI would be financed? For the cost of the current welfare system in the UK we could give every man, woman and child £3000/year, approx. This assumes that the cost of administration is basically zero, so it would involve sacking all the employees of the DWP or whatever it’s called now. Well, they would be entitled to UBI too... it has to be “universal” and “basic” or the numbers don’t work
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Has anyone run the numbers of how UBI would be financed? There are different ways to do the accounting here. The opponents like to just add up the sum of everyone's UBI and call that the cost. But if someone pays $12,000 to fund the UBI and then receives a $10,000 UBI, the net cost to them is obviously $2000 rather than $12,000. Calculating the overall net cost is also not very useful, because it's effectively zero outside of some minimal administrative costs -- payments in equal payments out. Probably the sensible way to do it is to calculate the net loss to people who pay more than they receive, e.g. $2000 to someone who pays $12,000 and receives $10,000 but $0 (rather than -$2000) for someone who pays $8000 and receives $10,000. Using those numbers you end up somewhere in the ballpark of 25% of the cost calculated using the first method, because you take the total cost and subtract out the UBI the top half of the population is paying themselves, and then half the remainder for the bottom half, because people in the bottom half would be net recipients but would still on average be paying half as much as they receive. Whether this is exactly 25% depends on the income distribution within the population. It gets higher the more inequality there is. If everyone had exactly the same income it would be 0%. If there is great inequality it would be higher, i.e. more dollars transferred from richer to poorer. But that's kind of what you want. The most important factor in the cost is obviously the amount of the UBI. It can be made arbitrarily more or less expensive by changing that. > I would be more in favor of a jobs guarantee since I think people find working meaningful There are reasons to think that would be a bad idea, e.g.: http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic-jobs-against-hijacking-utopia/?comments=false http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic-... Moreover, half the point of a UBI is that it doesn't impose costs on working, unlike means-tested programs where earning money from working causes the loss of benefits. It's one of the things that allow it to operate productively even at below-subsistence payment levels. The highest paying job you're qualified to do may not pay enough to subsist on but becomes enough when combined with a modest UBI. And for someone who genuinely can't find full-time work, they're more likely to find meaning -- or a lead on gainful employment -- by volunteering somewhere of their choosing rather than being forced to dig holes and fill them back in with insufficient free time to improve themselves and get out of that situation.
  - IanDrake 8y ago
    I’m not sure why you’re doing mental gymnastics on this one. There is a simple answer. 300,000,000 - US population $12,000 - Your UBI amount Total cost: 3.6 trillion dollars. Projected US tax collection for 2019: 3.4 trillion. That’s not the US budget, just the amount not borrowed to pay for the budget. Cost of social programs that UBI would replace (in theory): 2.3 trillion. (SS, Medicare, other). I don’t think UBI could replace SS though. So you need to increase tax revenues about 33% if you look at it in the most favorable way. Then, when the bottom falls out for those who needed the full benifit of the programs you replaced, you will either bring those programs back or increase the UBI payment for everyone, which is easy to do because we’d just vote ourselves more money, because money is free.