4 ms·

The big problem with UBI, aside from how to pay for it, is that it will not survive as either universal or basic once the voters get their hands on it and decid

The big problem with UBI, aside from how to pay for it, is that it will not survive as either universal or basic once the voters get their hands on it and decide that, say, UBI benefits should be cut for felons, increased for single mothers, indexed to the cost of rent, etc. In other words, we have a bunch of different welfare standards for people in different situations because that is what succeeds politically, and there is no reason to believe the same impulses that got us our current welfare system won't influence UBI also.

vorpalhex 8y ago
To be fair, I'm not entirely convinced that a truly universal system is the best. After all, a single parent has significant additional expenses - and should taxpayers be paying to give violent criminals a work-free existence? (Would you pay a living wage to someone who sexually assaulted your daughter?) In the US, this is especially a problem. The cost of living in Texas is low enough that my salary as an engineer gives me a very high quality of life - but the same salary in NYC would be very different in life results. A federally set UBI then seems... well, to have the same issues that minimum wage do.
- dota_fanatic 8y ago
  With money comes mobility, so people are free to move somewhere cheaper. Currently, those in the poverty cycle are trapped and chronically stressed, making it quite difficult to execute a plan that involves anything more than what's right in front them—moving out of city or out of state is out of the question. One of the biggest problems facing humanity is sustainability towards the planet. Unbounded population growth eventually breaks everything we all need to survive. If we incentivize having children more than it already is, some people will spawn just to get at that extra money for themselves and do the bare minimum to "raise" their children. And the kind of person that does that does not raise stable, healthy children who will come into their own as productive, healthy members of society...
  - macintux 8y ago
    > With money comes mobility, so people are free to move somewhere cheaper. I'm skeptical that most people who are currently trapped in poverty would receive enough UBI to make that practical. Money doesn't stretch as far in a strange place with no network to fall back on, even if nominally the cost of living is lower.
  - rcxdude 8y ago
    > With money comes mobility, so people are free to move somewhere cheaper I think generally people are not very willing to move regardless of cost. It takes (on average) quite a large economic gradient to move people out of a location they are comfortable in. Social ties to a location can be very strong indeed.
- delecti 8y ago
  > and should taxpayers be paying to give violent criminals a work-free existence This is exactly the problem. Recidivism is high because society doesn't give released prisoners any way to support themselves. Giving ex-cons a lifeline as soon as they get out would go a long way toward keeping them from ending up back in prison. So yes. Taxpayers should give ex-cons (even violent ones) a way to support themselves without resorting to crime again. And we shouldn't release prisoners if they're still a danger, which means we should focus on rehabilitation instead of just punishment.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  > should taxpayers be paying to give violent criminals a work-free existence? If doing so significantly reduces the recidivism rate (which I strongly suspect it would), then yeah, I'd say that be an easy 'yes'. I wouldn't be at all surprised if $X in free money given to ex-cons translates into much more than $X money saved by society. Getting mugged costs a lot more than just the money that was in your wallet. There's (often) medical bills, there's police officers to pay, there's lost productivity due to having to replace ID cards and whatnot, etc. If someone then gets charged with the crime, the costs balloon even further as you deal with further police costs, jail time, time for taking the case through the courts, etc. And if they get convicted, there are even more costs associated with that.
lolsal 8y ago
There is also the concern for what kind of welfare programs to implement (or keep) even with UBI - for example, if I blow all of my UBI on gambling/drugs/alcohol/electronics, will society let me starve to death in the street?
- jpindar 8y ago
  What happens now if you blow all your money from social security etc.? Why would that change?
  - lolsal 8y ago
    I really don't know what happens - my point was that there will still be need for things like homeless shelters, food programs, etc.
jostylr 8y ago
People already remove the universal right to vote for felons so what would the difference be here? One can always talk about universal and then not actually do it.
- twblalock 8y ago
  If UBI is not universal there is no point to doing it -- it would just be a complicated welfare system, and we already have one of those, and we certainly shouldn't throw it out just to end up creating another one.
  - jostylr 8y ago
    There is a world of difference between taking away benefits from someone convicted of a crime and saying that "such and such people qualify for assistance if they fill out forms x,y,z and do a,b,c." It would be analogous to saying that since we send some people to prison, we should all be in prison. It makes no sense to compare these two things. A person who commits a crime loses some rights. That may include a UBI, it may include voting rights, it may include loss of limbs. Felons are fundamentally treated differently than non-felons. How they are treated does reflect greatly the moral fiber of the population. I personally would not want to take either a UBI or voting away from felons, but that is a completely separate debate and should not be a factor in the UBI being applied to the other 99% of the population. The UBI debate is about what distribution of resources leads to the best society. It is about who has power, who does not. It is about who gets to make the decisions of what is made and to whom that stuff is given. It is about whether people can live secure or in constant fear. It is not a debate about the criminal justice system though that debate needs to be had as well. They are not totally independent, of course. There would be a great deal less crime if the stress of surviving was removed from much of the population.
zackmorris 8y ago
This is my biggest concern as well. Just to address your points: * My firm belief is that once felons do their time, their debt is paid and they should be full citizens again. They should definitely have the right to vote, although gun ownership might need to be addressed on a case by case basis for violent criminals for the safety of society. So UBI might need nondiscrimination laws attached to it. * If UBI is per capita, then a single mother with 2 children who doesn't receive child support would immediately see a roughly 3x increase in funds. This could be used to dissuade special cases for allocations. * Rent will almost certainly go up in places that have no appreciable disposable income currently. This may be a straw man argument however, encapsulating the fallacy that inflation would increase with UBI. If no additional money is being printed, then prices will even out somewhere else. For example, people might be able (as a whole) to afford mass transit or urban renewal projects which would open up competition for cheaper housing in other areas. Aside from specifics, I see your point however that people working for the general welfare may inadvertently undermine the efficacy of UBI. This is probably the single biggest threat to it, since I don't see any serious technical or financial hurdles. I'd vote to start everyone with a UBI plus a stipend that adds up to each welfare recipient's current payment (financed with debt initially). Then put a hold on welfare increases for 3-5 years. My guess is that the federal government wouldn't end up paying substantially more than it does now, although I'd like to see a study/projection on that. Also this all needs to happen outside of self-funded agencies like social security. I think that sacrificing so-called entitlements for UBI would be unethical, since people have paid into social security their entire lives.
- twblalock 8y ago
  > My guess is that the federal government wouldn't end up paying substantially more than it does now, although I'd like to see a study/projection on that. How could the government maintain current welfare payments and also give UBI to everyone at the same time without a massive spending increase?
  - zackmorris 8y ago
    Because in the long run, most forms of welfare are self-funded. For example social security and medicare are paid for by workers paying into the fund, and food stamps have an economic multiplier effect of about $1.8 dollars for ever $1 spent: https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/05/23/how-is-social-security-funded.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/05/23/how-is-so... https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare-is-funded/medicare-funding.html https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare-is-funded/med... https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/how-food-stamp-cuts-could-ripple-through-the-economy https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/how-food-stamp-cuts-coul... Also defense and national debt payments total more than welfare: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.... The above can be looked at as corporate welfare for defense contractors and the independently wealthy/large institutional investors. It looks like a $12,000 per capita UBI would cost about $4 trillion per year for 325 million Americans. This is about 1/5 of US GDP and roughly equal to the current US federal budget. So UBI would cost an additional $3 trillion if we get rid of welfare, or an additional $4 trillion if we keep it. I guess I jumped the gun a little on saying it's not that substantial, although I do wonder what kind of multiplier effects a UBI would have on the economy. My guesstimate is that it would be comparable to food stamps at 1.75x and probably generate an additional $3 trillion or so. But without a full study, it's hard to say. Hope this helps!

vorpalhex 8y ago

To be fair, I'm not entirely convinced that a truly universal system is the best. After all, a single parent has significant additional expenses - and should taxpayers be paying to give violent criminals a work-free existence? (Would you pay a living wage to someone who sexually assaulted your daughter?) In the US, this is especially a problem. The cost of living in Texas is low enough that my salary as an engineer gives me a very high quality of life - but the same salary in NYC would be very different in life results. A federally set UBI then seems... well, to have the same issues that minimum wage do.

dota_fanatic 8y ago
With money comes mobility, so people are free to move somewhere cheaper. Currently, those in the poverty cycle are trapped and chronically stressed, making it quite difficult to execute a plan that involves anything more than what's right in front them—moving out of city or out of state is out of the question. One of the biggest problems facing humanity is sustainability towards the planet. Unbounded population growth eventually breaks everything we all need to survive. If we incentivize having children more than it already is, some people will spawn just to get at that extra money for themselves and do the bare minimum to "raise" their children. And the kind of person that does that does not raise stable, healthy children who will come into their own as productive, healthy members of society...
- macintux 8y ago
  > With money comes mobility, so people are free to move somewhere cheaper. I'm skeptical that most people who are currently trapped in poverty would receive enough UBI to make that practical. Money doesn't stretch as far in a strange place with no network to fall back on, even if nominally the cost of living is lower.
- rcxdude 8y ago
  > With money comes mobility, so people are free to move somewhere cheaper I think generally people are not very willing to move regardless of cost. It takes (on average) quite a large economic gradient to move people out of a location they are comfortable in. Social ties to a location can be very strong indeed.
delecti 8y ago
> and should taxpayers be paying to give violent criminals a work-free existence This is exactly the problem. Recidivism is high because society doesn't give released prisoners any way to support themselves. Giving ex-cons a lifeline as soon as they get out would go a long way toward keeping them from ending up back in prison. So yes. Taxpayers should give ex-cons (even violent ones) a way to support themselves without resorting to crime again. And we shouldn't release prisoners if they're still a danger, which means we should focus on rehabilitation instead of just punishment.
bunderbunder 8y ago
> should taxpayers be paying to give violent criminals a work-free existence? If doing so significantly reduces the recidivism rate (which I strongly suspect it would), then yeah, I'd say that be an easy 'yes'. I wouldn't be at all surprised if $X in free money given to ex-cons translates into much more than $X money saved by society. Getting mugged costs a lot more than just the money that was in your wallet. There's (often) medical bills, there's police officers to pay, there's lost productivity due to having to replace ID cards and whatnot, etc. If someone then gets charged with the crime, the costs balloon even further as you deal with further police costs, jail time, time for taking the case through the courts, etc. And if they get convicted, there are even more costs associated with that.

lolsal 8y ago

There is also the concern for what kind of welfare programs to implement (or keep) even with UBI - for example, if I blow all of my UBI on gambling/drugs/alcohol/electronics, will society let me starve to death in the street?

jpindar 8y ago
What happens now if you blow all your money from social security etc.? Why would that change?
- lolsal 8y ago
  I really don't know what happens - my point was that there will still be need for things like homeless shelters, food programs, etc.

jostylr 8y ago

People already remove the universal right to vote for felons so what would the difference be here? One can always talk about universal and then not actually do it.

twblalock 8y ago
If UBI is not universal there is no point to doing it -- it would just be a complicated welfare system, and we already have one of those, and we certainly shouldn't throw it out just to end up creating another one.
- jostylr 8y ago
  There is a world of difference between taking away benefits from someone convicted of a crime and saying that "such and such people qualify for assistance if they fill out forms x,y,z and do a,b,c." It would be analogous to saying that since we send some people to prison, we should all be in prison. It makes no sense to compare these two things. A person who commits a crime loses some rights. That may include a UBI, it may include voting rights, it may include loss of limbs. Felons are fundamentally treated differently than non-felons. How they are treated does reflect greatly the moral fiber of the population. I personally would not want to take either a UBI or voting away from felons, but that is a completely separate debate and should not be a factor in the UBI being applied to the other 99% of the population. The UBI debate is about what distribution of resources leads to the best society. It is about who has power, who does not. It is about who gets to make the decisions of what is made and to whom that stuff is given. It is about whether people can live secure or in constant fear. It is not a debate about the criminal justice system though that debate needs to be had as well. They are not totally independent, of course. There would be a great deal less crime if the stress of surviving was removed from much of the population.

zackmorris 8y ago

This is my biggest concern as well. Just to address your points: * My firm belief is that once felons do their time, their debt is paid and they should be full citizens again. They should definitely have the right to vote, although gun ownership might need to be addressed on a case by case basis for violent criminals for the safety of society. So UBI might need nondiscrimination laws attached to it. * If UBI is per capita, then a single mother with 2 children who doesn't receive child support would immediately see a roughly 3x increase in funds. This could be used to dissuade special cases for allocations. * Rent will almost certainly go up in places that have no appreciable disposable income currently. This may be a straw man argument however, encapsulating the fallacy that inflation would increase with UBI. If no additional money is being printed, then prices will even out somewhere else. For example, people might be able (as a whole) to afford mass transit or urban renewal projects which would open up competition for cheaper housing in other areas. Aside from specifics, I see your point however that people working for the general welfare may inadvertently undermine the efficacy of UBI. This is probably the single biggest threat to it, since I don't see any serious technical or financial hurdles. I'd vote to start everyone with a UBI plus a stipend that adds up to each welfare recipient's current payment (financed with debt initially). Then put a hold on welfare increases for 3-5 years. My guess is that the federal government wouldn't end up paying substantially more than it does now, although I'd like to see a study/projection on that. Also this all needs to happen outside of self-funded agencies like social security. I think that sacrificing so-called entitlements for UBI would be unethical, since people have paid into social security their entire lives.

twblalock 8y ago
> My guess is that the federal government wouldn't end up paying substantially more than it does now, although I'd like to see a study/projection on that. How could the government maintain current welfare payments and also give UBI to everyone at the same time without a massive spending increase?
- zackmorris 8y ago
  Because in the long run, most forms of welfare are self-funded. For example social security and medicare are paid for by workers paying into the fund, and food stamps have an economic multiplier effect of about $1.8 dollars for ever $1 spent: https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/05/23/how-is-social-security-funded.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/05/23/how-is-so... https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare-is-funded/medicare-funding.html https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare-is-funded/med... https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/how-food-stamp-cuts-could-ripple-through-the-economy https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/how-food-stamp-cuts-coul... Also defense and national debt payments total more than welfare: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.... The above can be looked at as corporate welfare for defense contractors and the independently wealthy/large institutional investors. It looks like a $12,000 per capita UBI would cost about $4 trillion per year for 325 million Americans. This is about 1/5 of US GDP and roughly equal to the current US federal budget. So UBI would cost an additional $3 trillion if we get rid of welfare, or an additional $4 trillion if we keep it. I guess I jumped the gun a little on saying it's not that substantial, although I do wonder what kind of multiplier effects a UBI would have on the economy. My guesstimate is that it would be comparable to food stamps at 1.75x and probably generate an additional $3 trillion or so. But without a full study, it's hard to say. Hope this helps!