4 ms·

The virus crisis makes UBI look worse. We are ~2.5 months into lockdowns in the United States and all people got so far has been a check for $1200. People who

The virus crisis makes UBI look worse. We are ~2.5 months into lockdowns in the United States and all people got so far has been a check for $1200. People who support UBI need to provide a compelling justification for how it can be paid for, especially given how hard it has been, politically and financially, to give a one-time $1200 payment to American households. If it's so hard to do it even one time, how can we do it forever?

jimbob45 6y ago
Speak for yourself. $1200 is life-changing money for some people.
namdnay 6y ago
I think the usual solution is to increase income tax? So basically the introduction of UBI is neutral for the average household, the extra money from UBI being equivalent to the extra money lost on taxes
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- apta 6y ago
  Income (and sales) tax is a terrible model. A "wealth tax" (e.g. see how Islam requires Zakah) is superior, and has been historically shown to work.
  - godelski 6y ago
    > has been historically shown to work. Can you source this? Because I understand the exact opposite to be true. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a... https://www.npr.org/2019/03/01/699261950/why-a-wealth-tax-didnt-work-in-europe https://www.npr.org/2019/03/01/699261950/why-a-wealth-tax-di... https://www.businessinsider.com/4-european-countries-wealth-tax-spain-norway-switzerland-belgium-2019-11?op=1#belgium-enacted-a-limited-wealth-tax-last-year-on-securities-accounts-containing-over-500000-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/4-european-countries-wealth-... https://taxfoundation.org/elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax-oecd/ https://taxfoundation.org/elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax-oecd/ tldr: European countries dumped them because it is hard to calculate value of assets, especially for the ultra rich.
    - apta 6y ago
      My source is simply reading history :) It has been reported that during time of Omar ibn Abdul-Aziz, there were no poor people left to take Zakah, since everyone paid their dues. The difference between Zakah and wealth tax as proposed in the links you mentioned, is that the former applies to almost everyone (except the poor/needy obviously) in lieu of income and sales tax, not just to people with > $500k (or whatever) in their accounts. It may not be as straight forward to calculate compared to income tax, but the goal here is to solve a problem, not to just implement a mediocre solution that has been shown not to work. I came across this article that gives a high level summary[0]. [0] https://nzf.org.uk/when-islam-eradicated-poverty-umar-b-abdul-aziz-zakat https://nzf.org.uk/when-islam-eradicated-poverty-umar-b-abdu...
- notahacker 6y ago
  Except that it won't be fiscally neutral, because you've also got to pay for all the people who don't work enough to pay [non-trivial amounts of] income tax but also don't receive any form of benefit under the existing system. The usual unemployment rate hovers around the 4% mark. The usual working age economic inactivity rate hovers around the 25% mark. At least some people are going to have to be worse off to subsidise those people who are neither employed nor looking for employment.
  - namdnay 6y ago
    > At least some people are going to have to be worse off to subsidise those people who are neither employed nor looking for employment Yes, those in the upper tax brackets will pay more than they do today, to cover the situation you describe
tathougies 6y ago
> to give a one-time $1200 payment to American households. Most households received $2500+. Many of those will have received in excess of 3.5k. Some will have received several thousand
- twblalock 6y ago
  > Most households received $2500+. Many of those will have received in excess of 3.5k. Some will have received several thousand That is even less sustainable than a $1200 payment. It's a counter-argument to the entire concept of UBI. Where does the money come from? Are you just going to make it up out of thin air?
  - pasquinelli 6y ago
    Of course not, we'll harvest it from money trees, which is where money comes from.
  - tathougies 6y ago
    Oh yeah I agree. Sorry just correcting a mistaken statement.
SubiculumCode 6y ago
Paid for? The only limit to spending on debt denominated in your own currency is inflation. It is literally the only risk. If that money is used productively, then it won't cause inflation at all. I'd argue that preventing individuals from falling off economic cliffs would net an increase in productivity close to the amount spent into existence.
godelski 6y ago
> especially given how hard it has been It has been hard mostly for political reasons, not logistic. The big idea to UBI is that by giving money to everyone it takes out the complexity. Check if citizen, send check. There's no means basis that has to be analyzed. No formula. No background checks. Just simple. As to it being hard right now, well do note that we, the US, is in one of the most divisive times in its history (clearly not the most, but it is up there). It is easy to convince people that it isn't fair. Just as it is easy to convince people that it is the most fair. But it is hard to realize that raising the foundation raises the whole building. If a few bricks come from the top, without destroying the building, can bring up the floor, everyone gets lifted. Even those where the bricks were taken from. Maybe UBI does this, maybe it doesn't. But we should find out, shouldn't we?
- twblalock 6y ago
  > The big idea to UBI is that by giving money to everyone it takes out the complexity. Check if citizen, send check. There's no means basis that has to be analyzed. No formula. No background checks. Just simple. Human nature is not that simple. How do you think we ended up with the welfare system we have today? One example: pretty much everyone thinks single mothers are more worthy of welfare dollars than convicted felons. Guess who gets more welfare money? Explain how our moral intuitions are going to magically change overnight. If we pass a truly "universal" basic income law we will end up adding exceptions upon exceptions to it until we end up with something that looks a lot like the welfare system we have today. People just don't believe that everyone deserves the same amount of help from the government. Singling out certain groups as more or less deserving is a great way for politicians to get elected. That's where "tough on crime" comes from.
  - godelski 6y ago
    Except it isn't human nature, it is culture. Those things are different. You will find that those in scarcity are much more concerned about what is "fair" than those who are well off. This is the scarcity mindset.
aww_dang 6y ago
Like the rest of the budget, there's no realistic plan to 'pay' for it. UBI and MMT are birds of a feather. QE to infinity, unlimited plunge protection and stock buybacks. Cui bono? Just like every other power grab, those who question the narrative will be painted as lacking compassion for the underclasses, "think of the children", "the robots are coming", ad nasuem. Rationality will be dismissed with appeals to emotion. We've seen it all before. There's nothing new under the sun. Identity politics and class warfare enters stage left, "If you don't like this, you hate group X. If you are part of group X and you don't like it, then you don't know what is good for you!". Benevolent and condescending feel good guilt culture abounds. I read it in comments here regularly. I don't argue, I don't bother to disagree. I hedge accordingly.

jimbob45 6y ago

Speak for yourself. $1200 is life-changing money for some people.

namdnay 6y ago

I think the usual solution is to increase income tax? So basically the introduction of UBI is neutral for the average household, the extra money from UBI being equivalent to the extra money lost on taxes

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
apta 6y ago
Income (and sales) tax is a terrible model. A "wealth tax" (e.g. see how Islam requires Zakah) is superior, and has been historically shown to work.
- godelski 6y ago
  > has been historically shown to work. Can you source this? Because I understand the exact opposite to be true. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a... https://www.npr.org/2019/03/01/699261950/why-a-wealth-tax-didnt-work-in-europe https://www.npr.org/2019/03/01/699261950/why-a-wealth-tax-di... https://www.businessinsider.com/4-european-countries-wealth-tax-spain-norway-switzerland-belgium-2019-11?op=1#belgium-enacted-a-limited-wealth-tax-last-year-on-securities-accounts-containing-over-500000-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/4-european-countries-wealth-... https://taxfoundation.org/elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax-oecd/ https://taxfoundation.org/elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax-oecd/ tldr: European countries dumped them because it is hard to calculate value of assets, especially for the ultra rich.
  - apta 6y ago
    My source is simply reading history :) It has been reported that during time of Omar ibn Abdul-Aziz, there were no poor people left to take Zakah, since everyone paid their dues. The difference between Zakah and wealth tax as proposed in the links you mentioned, is that the former applies to almost everyone (except the poor/needy obviously) in lieu of income and sales tax, not just to people with > $500k (or whatever) in their accounts. It may not be as straight forward to calculate compared to income tax, but the goal here is to solve a problem, not to just implement a mediocre solution that has been shown not to work. I came across this article that gives a high level summary[0]. [0] https://nzf.org.uk/when-islam-eradicated-poverty-umar-b-abdul-aziz-zakat https://nzf.org.uk/when-islam-eradicated-poverty-umar-b-abdu...
notahacker 6y ago
Except that it won't be fiscally neutral, because you've also got to pay for all the people who don't work enough to pay [non-trivial amounts of] income tax but also don't receive any form of benefit under the existing system. The usual unemployment rate hovers around the 4% mark. The usual working age economic inactivity rate hovers around the 25% mark. At least some people are going to have to be worse off to subsidise those people who are neither employed nor looking for employment.
- namdnay 6y ago
  > At least some people are going to have to be worse off to subsidise those people who are neither employed nor looking for employment Yes, those in the upper tax brackets will pay more than they do today, to cover the situation you describe

tathougies 6y ago

> to give a one-time $1200 payment to American households. Most households received $2500+. Many of those will have received in excess of 3.5k. Some will have received several thousand

twblalock 6y ago
> Most households received $2500+. Many of those will have received in excess of 3.5k. Some will have received several thousand That is even less sustainable than a $1200 payment. It's a counter-argument to the entire concept of UBI. Where does the money come from? Are you just going to make it up out of thin air?
- pasquinelli 6y ago
  Of course not, we'll harvest it from money trees, which is where money comes from.
- tathougies 6y ago
  Oh yeah I agree. Sorry just correcting a mistaken statement.

SubiculumCode 6y ago

Paid for? The only limit to spending on debt denominated in your own currency is inflation. It is literally the only risk. If that money is used productively, then it won't cause inflation at all. I'd argue that preventing individuals from falling off economic cliffs would net an increase in productivity close to the amount spent into existence.

godelski 6y ago

> especially given how hard it has been It has been hard mostly for political reasons, not logistic. The big idea to UBI is that by giving money to everyone it takes out the complexity. Check if citizen, send check. There's no means basis that has to be analyzed. No formula. No background checks. Just simple. As to it being hard right now, well do note that we, the US, is in one of the most divisive times in its history (clearly not the most, but it is up there). It is easy to convince people that it isn't fair. Just as it is easy to convince people that it is the most fair. But it is hard to realize that raising the foundation raises the whole building. If a few bricks come from the top, without destroying the building, can bring up the floor, everyone gets lifted. Even those where the bricks were taken from. Maybe UBI does this, maybe it doesn't. But we should find out, shouldn't we?

twblalock 6y ago
> The big idea to UBI is that by giving money to everyone it takes out the complexity. Check if citizen, send check. There's no means basis that has to be analyzed. No formula. No background checks. Just simple. Human nature is not that simple. How do you think we ended up with the welfare system we have today? One example: pretty much everyone thinks single mothers are more worthy of welfare dollars than convicted felons. Guess who gets more welfare money? Explain how our moral intuitions are going to magically change overnight. If we pass a truly "universal" basic income law we will end up adding exceptions upon exceptions to it until we end up with something that looks a lot like the welfare system we have today. People just don't believe that everyone deserves the same amount of help from the government. Singling out certain groups as more or less deserving is a great way for politicians to get elected. That's where "tough on crime" comes from.
- godelski 6y ago
  Except it isn't human nature, it is culture. Those things are different. You will find that those in scarcity are much more concerned about what is "fair" than those who are well off. This is the scarcity mindset.

aww_dang 6y ago

Like the rest of the budget, there's no realistic plan to 'pay' for it. UBI and MMT are birds of a feather. QE to infinity, unlimited plunge protection and stock buybacks. Cui bono? Just like every other power grab, those who question the narrative will be painted as lacking compassion for the underclasses, "think of the children", "the robots are coming", ad nasuem. Rationality will be dismissed with appeals to emotion. We've seen it all before. There's nothing new under the sun. Identity politics and class warfare enters stage left, "If you don't like this, you hate group X. If you are part of group X and you don't like it, then you don't know what is good for you!". Benevolent and condescending feel good guilt culture abounds. I read it in comments here regularly. I don't argue, I don't bother to disagree. I hedge accordingly.