3 ms·

>Transfering cash directly is the most efficient way of decreasing inequality Is there any evidence for this? Is there evidence the money won't go right back i

by basch 7y ago

>Transfering cash directly is the most efficient way of decreasing inequality Is there any evidence for this? Is there evidence the money won't go right back into the lottery, consumption of unhealthy food, other vices, or right back into increased rent? What percentage of people will turn around and commit to an unnecessary more expensive car payment? If you hand people cash, but don't correct a lack of financial knowledge, health knowledge, and overcoming marketing, why do you think it will be spent wisely? Aren't lottery windfalls exact evidence of the opposite? At at an extreme minimum UBI should come with a budgeting framework. At a more extreme level it may be better as food stamps, health care, and retirement funding. Remember, the Freedom Dividend is instead of other, more directly allocated forms of social support. For those on SNAP and other cash equivalent programs, it's less than $1000 in net benefit, which makes it more net increase in welfare for the middle class than the poorest. A person who currently gets $600 in welfare will be able to upgrade to $1000, gaining $400, but somebody who currently qualifies for nothing gets $1000 more. So sure, the poorest are getting slightly more, but is it really actually tackling inequality, for the poorest to have the smallest net gain in the program?

david38 7y ago
It doesn’t even have to go to vices. Suppose 50% of the population is on UBI. Those 50% all need housing. What do you think the probability of the market generating optimal housing is? I’m guessing close to zero. Planned housing can do far better. The same with food. Let’s assume part of UBI is given as food stamps and only certain items qualify for use of food stamps. Combine this with required education (class you must attend to get UBI) and the quality of food consumed can increase significantly, helping to lower obesity and all the related problems.
- basch 7y ago
  Plus with some foods, like leafy greens, the "food stamp" could be unlimited consumption. Instead of giving people $300/m for food, just say: from this day forward all spinach, broccoli, Brussel sprouts, peas, beans are fully covered. Eat to your hearts content. A reverse sin tax. Subsidize things more the healthier they are. I'm obviously cynical about regulatory capture and dairy, livestock, etc industries lobbying to get their products certified as healthier than they are. With pizza being a vegetable and all now. I hate the argument that the market will correct with low income housing. The presence of housing alone isn't the problem, it's the desirability of the location and access to infrastructure like groceries and hospitals. Low income housing thrown on the edge of a city causes ghettos. Creating a livable are requires some level of more complex urban planning.

by basch 7y ago

david38 7y ago

It doesn’t even have to go to vices. Suppose 50% of the population is on UBI. Those 50% all need housing. What do you think the probability of the market generating optimal housing is? I’m guessing close to zero. Planned housing can do far better. The same with food. Let’s assume part of UBI is given as food stamps and only certain items qualify for use of food stamps. Combine this with required education (class you must attend to get UBI) and the quality of food consumed can increase significantly, helping to lower obesity and all the related problems.

basch 7y ago
Plus with some foods, like leafy greens, the "food stamp" could be unlimited consumption. Instead of giving people $300/m for food, just say: from this day forward all spinach, broccoli, Brussel sprouts, peas, beans are fully covered. Eat to your hearts content. A reverse sin tax. Subsidize things more the healthier they are. I'm obviously cynical about regulatory capture and dairy, livestock, etc industries lobbying to get their products certified as healthier than they are. With pizza being a vegetable and all now. I hate the argument that the market will correct with low income housing. The presence of housing alone isn't the problem, it's the desirability of the location and access to infrastructure like groceries and hospitals. Low income housing thrown on the edge of a city causes ghettos. Creating a livable are requires some level of more complex urban planning.