5 ms·

> UBI seems like it would be the most powerful vote-buying weapon ever created in the hands of any government given the opportunity to implement it. What's the

> UBI seems like it would be the most powerful vote-buying weapon ever created in the hands of any government given the opportunity to implement it. What's the difference between debating over UBI and increasing/decreasing taxes with regard to buying votes? Truly universal as you say there's only one question re: UBI what's the monthly payment? With tax code there's a million different loopholes and special interest carve outs etc.

zhoujianfu 6y ago
To be fair, there are a few other questions... Is it monthly or weekly/bi-weekly/quarterly/annually? Does universal include children under 18? Non-citizens? If so, for the same amount? Can you borrow against your UBI or allow others to take liens? How do you actually register and get the money? But that’s about it I can think of!
- kzrdude 6y ago
  The citizen question is so very hard, because in practice, non-citizens are numerous and very vulnerable. Cementing UBI for citizens only, would construct a gulf state like two tier society. Eligibility for the UBI will always be contested. Would it not make it even harder for immigration laws as well?
  - neilparikh 6y ago
    If the choice is between a comprehensive welfare state/UBI for both citizens and non-citizens, with restricted immigration vs. welfare/UBI restrict to citizens only but with more permissive immigration, I suspect the vast majority of non-Americans would choose the second. UBI for non-citizens is nice, but completely useless if the US won't even let you in. For people in poorer countries, the quality of life improvement from coming in the US would be so drastic, that preventing people from making that movement, simply to give a small minority of them a marginal benefit, seems to be the wrong decision to take. Another way to put it is that the two tier system already exists, it's just that the second tier is outside the US/developed countries.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Its troubling to imagine the negotiations that might get restrictions put in place, to further political wrangles. If the 'U' is not there, then its just another program to manage with a huge bureaucracy. Instead of the great leveler and simplifier it could be.
chrisco255 6y ago
Because the earnings part comes before the tax part, which is the proper order of operations. In order to produce earnings, our system dictates that you do something economically useful. That's not a perfect system, but it has produced the modern economy and for all its flaws, no economy in history has produced as much wealth as exists today. I am highly skeptical of UBI. The U.S. is the last place that should try it, it should be experimented on in a country like New Zealand or Italy... not on an economy like the U.S., which could bring down world trade if UBI ends in economic catastrophe, such as hyperinflation, which is a very real possibility.
- vkou 6y ago
  > Because the earnings part comes before the tax part, which is the proper order of operations. In order to produce earnings, our system dictates that you do something economically useful. That's not a perfect system, but it has produced the modern economy and for all its flaws, no economy in history has produced as much wealth as exists today. It should be noted that if it weren't for the energy we are extracting from fossil fuels, we'd all be subsistence peasants eating mud, and shoveling cow shit with our hands for a living. The economic system is a rounding error, compared to the colossal increase in wealth unlocked by cheap access to energy.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    cheap access to energy is merely a lever for allowing people to be even more economically useful. By itself, cheap access to energy is worth nothing.
  - jdale27 6y ago
    The economic system enabled the extraction of fossil fuels in the first place. Capitalism predates the industrial revolution.
    - vkou 6y ago
      Non-capitalist societies that industrialized also saw enormous gains in wealth. The difference between the US and the USSR was much smaller than the difference between pre-industrialized Russia, and the USSR.
jpindar 6y ago
You can't buy a sandwich with a piece of paper that says your taxes are going to be lower next year (especially when you don't have much income to be taxed).

zhoujianfu 6y ago

To be fair, there are a few other questions... Is it monthly or weekly/bi-weekly/quarterly/annually? Does universal include children under 18? Non-citizens? If so, for the same amount? Can you borrow against your UBI or allow others to take liens? How do you actually register and get the money? But that’s about it I can think of!

kzrdude 6y ago
The citizen question is so very hard, because in practice, non-citizens are numerous and very vulnerable. Cementing UBI for citizens only, would construct a gulf state like two tier society. Eligibility for the UBI will always be contested. Would it not make it even harder for immigration laws as well?
- neilparikh 6y ago
  If the choice is between a comprehensive welfare state/UBI for both citizens and non-citizens, with restricted immigration vs. welfare/UBI restrict to citizens only but with more permissive immigration, I suspect the vast majority of non-Americans would choose the second. UBI for non-citizens is nice, but completely useless if the US won't even let you in. For people in poorer countries, the quality of life improvement from coming in the US would be so drastic, that preventing people from making that movement, simply to give a small minority of them a marginal benefit, seems to be the wrong decision to take. Another way to put it is that the two tier system already exists, it's just that the second tier is outside the US/developed countries.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Its troubling to imagine the negotiations that might get restrictions put in place, to further political wrangles. If the 'U' is not there, then its just another program to manage with a huge bureaucracy. Instead of the great leveler and simplifier it could be.

chrisco255 6y ago

Because the earnings part comes before the tax part, which is the proper order of operations. In order to produce earnings, our system dictates that you do something economically useful. That's not a perfect system, but it has produced the modern economy and for all its flaws, no economy in history has produced as much wealth as exists today. I am highly skeptical of UBI. The U.S. is the last place that should try it, it should be experimented on in a country like New Zealand or Italy... not on an economy like the U.S., which could bring down world trade if UBI ends in economic catastrophe, such as hyperinflation, which is a very real possibility.

vkou 6y ago
> Because the earnings part comes before the tax part, which is the proper order of operations. In order to produce earnings, our system dictates that you do something economically useful. That's not a perfect system, but it has produced the modern economy and for all its flaws, no economy in history has produced as much wealth as exists today. It should be noted that if it weren't for the energy we are extracting from fossil fuels, we'd all be subsistence peasants eating mud, and shoveling cow shit with our hands for a living. The economic system is a rounding error, compared to the colossal increase in wealth unlocked by cheap access to energy.
- malandrew 6y ago
  cheap access to energy is merely a lever for allowing people to be even more economically useful. By itself, cheap access to energy is worth nothing.
- jdale27 6y ago
  The economic system enabled the extraction of fossil fuels in the first place. Capitalism predates the industrial revolution.
  - vkou 6y ago
    Non-capitalist societies that industrialized also saw enormous gains in wealth. The difference between the US and the USSR was much smaller than the difference between pre-industrialized Russia, and the USSR.

jpindar 6y ago

You can't buy a sandwich with a piece of paper that says your taxes are going to be lower next year (especially when you don't have much income to be taxed).