4 ms·

That's only if you ignore the unseen, i.e. the broken window fallacy. It becomes a tax on everyone else who is holding cash when we assume that the money suppl

That's only if you ignore the unseen, i.e. the broken window fallacy. It becomes a tax on everyone else who is holding cash when we assume that the money supply will be inflated, which is the default scenario. Otherwise actual taxes will have to be levied to fund UBI. If we accept that society has witnessed massive increases in productivity over the last hundred years, what happened to the 5 cent hamburgers? How does this price inflation help the impoverished? When we create a monetary spigot and allocate resources via gov. intervention, those who specialize in currying favor with gov. will always benefit disproportionately. Ironically, proponents of further gov. intervention use this wealth inequality to rationalize further gov. allocation of resources.

lmm 6y ago
> It becomes a tax on everyone else who is holding cash when we assume that the money supply will be inflated, which is the default scenario. Otherwise actual taxes will have to be levied to fund UBI. Of course taxes would need to be levied to fund it, as with any other government expense. And setting the tax curve right is nontrivial. But a complex tax system and a simple disbursement system is still an improvement over a complex tax system and a complex disbursement system which is what we currently have. (Eliminating almost all tax deductions would also be a good programme to follow). > If we accept that society has witnessed massive increases in productivity over the last hundred years, what happened to the 5 cent hamburgers? How does this price inflation help the impoverished? So what you're saying is that in a non-UBI world, increases in productivity have not helped the poorest. How is that an argument against UBI? > When we create a monetary spigot and allocate resources via gov. intervention, those who specialize in currying favor with gov. will always benefit disproportionately. That's true in proportion to how complex the rules are. E.g. most TARP funding went to New York 1%ers, because those were the people who knew how to meet the TARP requirements. The whole point of UBI is to reverse that by having the simplest, most transparent rules possible for who gets what money.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  >So what you're saying is... What I am saying (sorry for not being explicit) is that increases in productivity have not helped the poorest because they have been robbed of said benefits by price inflation, which is a symptom of an inflation of the money supply. >The whole point of UBI is to reverse that by having the simplest, most transparent rules possible for who gets what money My expectation is that those who collect rent on low income housing will benefit more than those who pay the increased rent. At the end of the day low income people will have more money, but all of their expenses for basics like food and rent will increase. >Of course taxes would need to be levied to fund it, as with any other government expense. Recent history suggests that this is simply not the case. Budget deficits would be a more reasonable expectation. Either way, increased taxes will similarly create increased prices. Those with lesser incomes will suffer the most.
  - lmm 6y ago
    > increases in productivity have not helped the poorest because they have been robbed of said benefits by price inflation, which is a symptom of an inflation of the money supply. Price inflation doesn't change how much real value exists is in the world. The problem the working poor have isn't inflation (if anything, inflation costs the rich more than the poor, since the rich are more likely to have savings), it's that they're taking home an ever smaller proportion of the value they produce. > My expectation is that those who collect rent on low income housing will benefit more than those who pay the increased rent. At the end of the day low income people will have more money, but all of their expenses for basics like food and rent will increase. Cheap food is a competitive, low-margin business, so it's unlikely that the cost would increase. (If you're thinking about labour costs going up, higher-end goods are generally much more labour-intensive than cheap goods). Housing markets are their own total mess, but if there's a lot less need for people to live near their job then that should make housing a lot more competitive and if anything lower prices. > Recent history suggests that this is simply not the case. Budget deficits would be a more reasonable expectation. It's not like governments don't already run the highest deficits they can get away with. The mechanisms that limit them (credit ratings etc.) will be the same mechanisms we currently have; introducing UBI doesn't change that one way or another. > Either way, increased taxes will similarly create increased prices. Those with lesser incomes will suffer the most. It's absurd to think that doubling the proportion of extant dollars in the hands of the working poor (at the expense of people on the high end) would make those people worse off. Price adjustments might blunt some of the effect, but wealth redistribution must ultimately work; why would the rich be so afraid of it otherwise?

lmm 6y ago

> It becomes a tax on everyone else who is holding cash when we assume that the money supply will be inflated, which is the default scenario. Otherwise actual taxes will have to be levied to fund UBI. Of course taxes would need to be levied to fund it, as with any other government expense. And setting the tax curve right is nontrivial. But a complex tax system and a simple disbursement system is still an improvement over a complex tax system and a complex disbursement system which is what we currently have. (Eliminating almost all tax deductions would also be a good programme to follow). > If we accept that society has witnessed massive increases in productivity over the last hundred years, what happened to the 5 cent hamburgers? How does this price inflation help the impoverished? So what you're saying is that in a non-UBI world, increases in productivity have not helped the poorest. How is that an argument against UBI? > When we create a monetary spigot and allocate resources via gov. intervention, those who specialize in currying favor with gov. will always benefit disproportionately. That's true in proportion to how complex the rules are. E.g. most TARP funding went to New York 1%ers, because those were the people who knew how to meet the TARP requirements. The whole point of UBI is to reverse that by having the simplest, most transparent rules possible for who gets what money.

aww_dang 6y ago
>So what you're saying is... What I am saying (sorry for not being explicit) is that increases in productivity have not helped the poorest because they have been robbed of said benefits by price inflation, which is a symptom of an inflation of the money supply. >The whole point of UBI is to reverse that by having the simplest, most transparent rules possible for who gets what money My expectation is that those who collect rent on low income housing will benefit more than those who pay the increased rent. At the end of the day low income people will have more money, but all of their expenses for basics like food and rent will increase. >Of course taxes would need to be levied to fund it, as with any other government expense. Recent history suggests that this is simply not the case. Budget deficits would be a more reasonable expectation. Either way, increased taxes will similarly create increased prices. Those with lesser incomes will suffer the most.
- lmm 6y ago
  > increases in productivity have not helped the poorest because they have been robbed of said benefits by price inflation, which is a symptom of an inflation of the money supply. Price inflation doesn't change how much real value exists is in the world. The problem the working poor have isn't inflation (if anything, inflation costs the rich more than the poor, since the rich are more likely to have savings), it's that they're taking home an ever smaller proportion of the value they produce. > My expectation is that those who collect rent on low income housing will benefit more than those who pay the increased rent. At the end of the day low income people will have more money, but all of their expenses for basics like food and rent will increase. Cheap food is a competitive, low-margin business, so it's unlikely that the cost would increase. (If you're thinking about labour costs going up, higher-end goods are generally much more labour-intensive than cheap goods). Housing markets are their own total mess, but if there's a lot less need for people to live near their job then that should make housing a lot more competitive and if anything lower prices. > Recent history suggests that this is simply not the case. Budget deficits would be a more reasonable expectation. It's not like governments don't already run the highest deficits they can get away with. The mechanisms that limit them (credit ratings etc.) will be the same mechanisms we currently have; introducing UBI doesn't change that one way or another. > Either way, increased taxes will similarly create increased prices. Those with lesser incomes will suffer the most. It's absurd to think that doubling the proportion of extant dollars in the hands of the working poor (at the expense of people on the high end) would make those people worse off. Price adjustments might blunt some of the effect, but wealth redistribution must ultimately work; why would the rich be so afraid of it otherwise?