3 ms·
The rent thing is a bad argument against UBI, because you can make the same argument about any program that benefits the poor - even if all the UBI money goes b
by djrobstep 7y ago
The rent thing is a bad argument against UBI, because you can make the same argument about any program that benefits the poor - even if all the UBI money goes back into rent, UBI would equalise housing spend along the way, from rich to poor and from worker to non-worker, vastly reducing poverty.
Even for people not in poverty it would help even out their income over their life cycle - more money when they have kids, find themselves temporarily unemployed, or in retirement.
Certainly land rents are totally unjust and a huge problem, and land value tax/public housing/public land ownership would be great, but the case for UBI is compelling even without any of that.
- philwelch 7y ago> even if all the UBI money goes back into rent, UBI would equalise housing spend along the way, from rich to poor and from worker to non-worker, vastly reducing poverty How would that be? If your rent goes up $1000 regardless of what you're paying now, someone who earns $0 and can't afford a $600 apartment now collects $1000 and can't afford a $1600 apartment while the guy who could afford the $600 apartment by earning $1500 now has a monthly income of $2500 and a $1600 apartment.
- djrobstep 7y agoFor the poor person on $0, they can now afford to share a place or be less stress on their family financially. For the person on the margin of affordability they can now afford an apartment. Those on the highest incomes don't gain in a raw sense because they pay in more than they get, but still benefit from income smoothing.
- amiga_500 7y ago> because you can make the same argument about any program that benefits the poor Yes, I think many things go straight back into land. The UK has 'housing benefit'. It's 'landlord benefit', because it subsidises unpayable rents.