4 ms·
> How is it possible to pull this much money out of the American economy without crashing it? The money isn't pulled out, though. It is redistributed to people
by mactrey 8y ago
> How is it possible to pull this much money out of the American economy without crashing it?
The money isn't pulled out, though. It is redistributed to people, many of whom will immediately spend it, and others will invest it in various (hopefully efficient) ways.
> Why would a national government do this?
The problem of entry and exit. Say one state like Massachusetts implemented a UBI. Then we could expect many people to move to MA from surrounding states, or do whatever they can to have a legal address there. However I think there are possible solutions to this and a state-by-state implementation is actually possible. For example, Alaska has their dividend program and I think the results from that have been quite good.
> I don't think we need to be paying anyone who makes over 50k
I think I agree which is why I'm more in favor of a negative income tax or other means-tested system than true UBI. But if I were to argue in favor of an "everyone gets the same" program I'd say something like, implementation is somewhat less complicated, or it's easier to explain to the public.
- jeffbax 8y agoYup, a negative income tax is a much better policy avenue to deal with this. It's much better to subsidize people doing things of varying degrees of productivity in an otherwise open employment market, than to discourage work entirely. Work is how you learn and often have some kind of basic dignity and meaning, not to mention how you eventually move up to better positions. This is essentially what the Earned Income Tax Credit is, and what should be expanded rather than something that would dis-incentivize working at all.
- mises 8y agoI would be more inclined to agree with you. Inciting hard work is a much better idea then giving everyone money regardless.