4 ms·

I look at UBI as a replacement for a part time minimum wage job, not for working. Meaning it ought to give you about 250 dollars a week. I also view it as a rep

• ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  > "...the other key about UBI is everyone gets it, no matter if wealthy or poor" Of course if you have anything above poverty level income, it gets snatched right back plus whole lot more though taxes to cover the other UBI recipients who don't. The "everybody gets UBI" rhetoric doesn't really fool anybody; money doesn't come out of thin air.
  • joshbetz 7y ago
    We wouldn’t need all the infrastructure to ensure only qualified people get welfare. I’ve heard this would make UBI cheaper than what we do now, considering that it would be essentially taxed away from rich people as you say.
    • tome 7y ago
      Do you have compelling examples on non-means-tested benefits remaining non-means-tested indefinitely? This doesn't seem to be what happens in the UK. Some government invariably either wants to reduce its expenditure or be seen to be "tough on scroungers" and the start means testing.
  • dannypgh 7y ago
    > money doesn't come out of thin air. It can, though. Money is created all the time by banks only having to keep a fraction of their deposits on reserve. You deposit $100, they lend out $80, then you have $100 (in the bank) and someone else has $80 in cash (and an obligation to repay). $180 exists in a real form when at the beginning only $100 existed. For the US Treasury, the rules are even stranger. Like a bank, they can write checks for whatever they want, as long as they do so in a manner consistent with the law (and laws can be changed). Unlike a bank, there can never be a "run" on the Treasury (no Treasury check can ever bounce for insufficient funds) because they can literally just print more money. It is entirely possible to just deficit spend your way to a UBI. Many economists would predict this to create inflationary pressure - and indeed it might - but predictable inflation, even at moderate amounts, is beneficial to those who those who carry debts. This can create incentives for investment (you don't want to sit on your money if it's losing value) which may result in actual wealth creation. Inflationary monetary policy effectively acts as a tax on those who hold currency, yes, but it's not a zero sum game. Plus people who receive these checks will spend it in the economy or deposit it with banks to create more of it. Economics is not well enough understood for there to be a consensus on what this would do in aggregate, and anyone who tells you otherwise is probably lying.
  • skybrian 7y ago
    Yes, the equality of everyone getting the same amount with UBI is symbolic since you need to look at the overall effect combined with taxes. It's better thought of as a redistribution and insurance program. Most people with average or above income will be getting back their own money, like an income tax refund that happens throughout the year. (Not accounting for this makes the cost look a lot higher than it is.) Financial security is important though. Paying more in taxes in normal times so you know you'll be okay between jobs would make everyone more secure. The tends to worry people who think their fellow citizens can't handle financial security and will do crazy things unless forced to worry about money all the time. I think more bad stuff happens due to poverty than due to having some money.
  • aoeusnth1 7y ago
    This is factually incorrect, although it's possible you know that and are just overstating your case. Specifically, you have to spend $120k/year on nonessentials to break even with the Freedom Dividend plan. That's a far cry from "anything above poverty level... gets snatched back plus a whole lot more".
    • ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      That's an estimate and, as programmers, we all know how (un)trustworthy estimates are and how universal cost overruns are, particularly for a government program and especially at the scale UBI would be implemented at. It also seems likely that those estimates are optimistic about continued economic growth; could the US afford to continue UBI in a deep recession or depression? Moreover, even if things go as planned initially, eventually that $1k a month will start creeping up because of public and other political pressure. The world is not going to stand still. Even the great European democracies can't afford UBI (and they're not even covering the costs for their own military defense!). There is no reason to believe that the United States can.