5 ms·

As I understand it, the basic income idea is based on that realistically almost everyone at some point uses government aid or finances (directly or indirectly).

As I understand it, the basic income idea is based on that realistically almost everyone at some point uses government aid or finances (directly or indirectly). basic income is just making sure that when you need to make use of that aid, you don't have to jump through hoops, requirements and paperwork. By giving everyone enough to live and not starve, you can do that. Without needing bureaucracy. It goes together with other great ideas like a minimum livable wage[0], pensions, public education and public healthcare. If we are the rich west, why can't we just take care of everyone? we'll still be plenty productive. And if you want more go work, go study, go for competitive jobs. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

eru 6y ago
> As I understand it, the basic income idea is based on that realistically almost everyone at some point uses government aid or finances (directly or indirectly). basic income is just making sure that when you need to make use of that aid, you don't have to jump through hoops, requirements and paperwork. That points at an alternative way to conceptualize a basic income: at the end of the day, it's the net transfer that matters. Ie all the money and welfare services you get from the government minus all the taxes you pay. On average over all of society that net transfer has to be zero. (Modulo complications to do with souvereign wealth funds and government debt.) Now, most people around the world want rich people to pay and poorer people to receive on net. The usual way to achieve that is via means testing in both the welfare and the tax system. Basic income can be seen as a way to simplify government bureaucracies by shifting all the means testing out of the welfare system and into the tax system. > By giving everyone enough to live and not starve, you can do that. Without needing bureaucracy. It goes together with other great ideas like a minimum livable wage[0], pensions, public education and public healthcare. These other things don't sound like good ideas to me. Especially outlawing poor people's jobs seems cruel and a bad case of 'Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics' to me. See https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
snarf21 6y ago
It is a very complicated issue. I'm all for needs based aid from the government without all the bureaucracy. It would even allow us to help more people on the fringe. However, one thing that no one ever talks about or thinks through is that a lot of that "waste" is someone else's job and pension. If you cut 90% of the staff at all welfare and other programs offices, those people need other jobs or have to go on the same programs. Additionally, it is the universal part of UBI that people struggle with. If everyone gets it, do prices just rise to meet that reality and soak up the "free" money. We'll need regulations (and people to enforce them) to make sure housing prices stay reasonable for lower income people. This is why government housing exists today, the cost can be locked. All said, I think UBI doesn't work because it can't be universal, but we should be helping more people and the well off can afford to pay 1% more of their largess to do so.
- adrianN 6y ago
  I don't think we have enough data to say anything. For example, it might as well be that housing prices decrease, because people can now choose where they live independently from having a job. Cities might become much less attractive.
- algo646464 6y ago
  > Additionally, it is the universal part of UBI that people struggle with. If everyone gets it, do prices just rise to meet that reality and soak up the "free" money. Think about this another way: if it is true that the prices are going to rise because of UBI, i.e. because everyone can afford the "basics"(the B of UBI), then it means that the lower prices of today require that some people do without these basics.
- raisedbyninjas 6y ago
  Keeping a hulking bureaucracy around as a jobs program is the last thing we need. So far, whenever a disruptive technology or policy change has happened people have found other work to do. Let's not worry about the oncologist jobs as we search for the cure for cancer.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Furthermore, a lot of that overhead are people like social workers and so forth. Even if one accepts the principle of reducing means testing and so forth, is it really the proposal that everyone gets sent a check once a month along with a note that basically says "You'll get another one next month. Until then you're on your own. Enjoy."
Aerroon 6y ago
>If we are the rich west, why can't we just take care of everyone? What does it mean to "take care of everyone"? That their "basic needs" are met? What do you define as basic needs? I will assume that this will include at least food, housing, and clothing. Is it acceptable to provide everyone with rice? Potatoes? Do we have to provide them meat? Is it acceptable to offer them housing somewhere in the country or does it have to be near where they currently are? If the latter then how do you determine who gets displaced further away? Now the answer is likely going to be "we give them money, so they can decide". The problem with this answer is that life doesn't cost the same everywhere in the US. $1,000 a month is enough to live on in some areas, whereas others $1,000 will barely get you a living space and nothing else. Obviously you can't give people in more expensive areas more money, because then everyone would want to be in the expensive areas. So, how much should we give people? When answering that question keep in mind that there are 330 million people living in the US. If you give everyone $1,000 a month it will cost you $4 trillion. US tax revenues in 2019 amounted to $3.5 trillion.[0] To put this into perspective: US mandatory spending in 2019 was $2.7 trillion.[1] This is stuff like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans programs etc. You can't just renege on all of these obligations, because the government gave people guarantees on them - that's what they paid taxes for. It's unlikely people would accept less money than what they were promised. Not to mention that you probably couldn't cut Medicare and Medicaid anyway. That's already a trillion gone from the budget. You probably also can't cut much from discretionary spending. You'd be cutting the military and basically every other non-social service the government does. Stuff like NASA and environmental research etc. Ultimately, just $1,000 a month per person would require an enormous budget increase to the tune of >$2 trillion a year. Keep in mind that the US budget deficit is already at $1 trillion a year. You'd have a deficit of $3 trillion or require an enormous tax increase (almost doubling tax revenue). And it still hinges on there being no reduction in productivity. If you then want public healthcare too, then it gets even more expensive. Medicaid covers 64.1 million people[2] at the cost of $409 billion.[1] Getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid and replacing it with healthcare for everyone would add up to an extra cost of ~$1.3 trillion, assuming that the healthcare costs for everyone else is about the same per person as it is for people on Medicaid. "A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking real money." [0] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56324 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56324 [1] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56325 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56325 [2] https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-enrollment-data/report-highlights/index.html https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica...
jimbokun 6y ago
> It goes together with other great ideas like a minimum livable wage[0] Isn't that redundant with UBI? If UBI is already providing a minimum standard of living, then it's mathematically impossible for any wage combined with UBI to be below that standard.
- derefr 6y ago
  I imagine, in a country with UBI, people wouldn't talk about "minimum livable wage", but rather "minimum livable all-source income." Also, UBI provides a minimum standard of living, but I believe the idea there is that you'd have to make several potentially-drastic changes in your life to truly be living the sort of "minimum" life that it pays for. For example, I believe that UBI isn't supposed to pay out more for people who live in areas of a country with higher costs of living; so part of "living minimally" would be moving to the lowest cost-of-living part of the country. Remember, UBI is usually spoken of as a federal program; whereas "minimum livable wage" is usually modelled by state or even by city. So it'd make sense to talk about needing a certain level of wages, above-and-beyond your UBI, to survive in a high cost-of-living area. (What would happen if UBI was based on regional cost-of-living? Well, for one thing, we'd see a lot of people who either don't "live where they live", but instead consistently renew their IDs within the highest cost-of-living areas; or, if the controls are tighter, we'd see people migrating to high cost-of-living areas to live out of their cars in the middle of them, to save up the most money.)
  - RunningDroid 6y ago
    > (What would happen if UBI was based on regional cost-of-living? Well, for one thing, we'd see a lot of people who either don't "live where they live", but instead consistently renew their IDs within the highest cost-of-living areas; or, if the controls are tighter, we'd see people migrating to high cost-of-living areas to live out of their cars in the middle of them, to save up the most money.) IMO those would be exploited infrequently enough that it would be worth it to base it on regional cost-of-living and tighten the controls until exploitation falls below an acceptable level.
    - 6y ago
ouid 6y ago
My understanding of basic income is a bit different. The average American adult needs to make 1500/month to meet the basic requirements of life. This is equivalent to paying off a mortgage over the term of your life of about $500,000, or student loans to the tune of $250,000. (I used an annuity calculator for these figures https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity-calculator.aspx https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity-calcu...). Basic income can be distilled to notion that, if student loans are bad for humanity, then it is reasonable to suggest that this intrinsic debt might also be bad.

eru 6y ago

> As I understand it, the basic income idea is based on that realistically almost everyone at some point uses government aid or finances (directly or indirectly). basic income is just making sure that when you need to make use of that aid, you don't have to jump through hoops, requirements and paperwork. That points at an alternative way to conceptualize a basic income: at the end of the day, it's the net transfer that matters. Ie all the money and welfare services you get from the government minus all the taxes you pay. On average over all of society that net transfer has to be zero. (Modulo complications to do with souvereign wealth funds and government debt.) Now, most people around the world want rich people to pay and poorer people to receive on net. The usual way to achieve that is via means testing in both the welfare and the tax system. Basic income can be seen as a way to simplify government bureaucracies by shifting all the means testing out of the welfare system and into the tax system. > By giving everyone enough to live and not starve, you can do that. Without needing bureaucracy. It goes together with other great ideas like a minimum livable wage[0], pensions, public education and public healthcare. These other things don't sound like good ideas to me. Especially outlawing poor people's jobs seems cruel and a bad case of 'Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics' to me. See https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...

snarf21 6y ago

It is a very complicated issue. I'm all for needs based aid from the government without all the bureaucracy. It would even allow us to help more people on the fringe. However, one thing that no one ever talks about or thinks through is that a lot of that "waste" is someone else's job and pension. If you cut 90% of the staff at all welfare and other programs offices, those people need other jobs or have to go on the same programs. Additionally, it is the universal part of UBI that people struggle with. If everyone gets it, do prices just rise to meet that reality and soak up the "free" money. We'll need regulations (and people to enforce them) to make sure housing prices stay reasonable for lower income people. This is why government housing exists today, the cost can be locked. All said, I think UBI doesn't work because it can't be universal, but we should be helping more people and the well off can afford to pay 1% more of their largess to do so.

adrianN 6y ago
I don't think we have enough data to say anything. For example, it might as well be that housing prices decrease, because people can now choose where they live independently from having a job. Cities might become much less attractive.
algo646464 6y ago
> Additionally, it is the universal part of UBI that people struggle with. If everyone gets it, do prices just rise to meet that reality and soak up the "free" money. Think about this another way: if it is true that the prices are going to rise because of UBI, i.e. because everyone can afford the "basics"(the B of UBI), then it means that the lower prices of today require that some people do without these basics.
raisedbyninjas 6y ago
Keeping a hulking bureaucracy around as a jobs program is the last thing we need. So far, whenever a disruptive technology or policy change has happened people have found other work to do. Let's not worry about the oncologist jobs as we search for the cure for cancer.
ghaff 6y ago
Furthermore, a lot of that overhead are people like social workers and so forth. Even if one accepts the principle of reducing means testing and so forth, is it really the proposal that everyone gets sent a check once a month along with a note that basically says "You'll get another one next month. Until then you're on your own. Enjoy."

Aerroon 6y ago

>If we are the rich west, why can't we just take care of everyone? What does it mean to "take care of everyone"? That their "basic needs" are met? What do you define as basic needs? I will assume that this will include at least food, housing, and clothing. Is it acceptable to provide everyone with rice? Potatoes? Do we have to provide them meat? Is it acceptable to offer them housing somewhere in the country or does it have to be near where they currently are? If the latter then how do you determine who gets displaced further away? Now the answer is likely going to be "we give them money, so they can decide". The problem with this answer is that life doesn't cost the same everywhere in the US. $1,000 a month is enough to live on in some areas, whereas others $1,000 will barely get you a living space and nothing else. Obviously you can't give people in more expensive areas more money, because then everyone would want to be in the expensive areas. So, how much should we give people? When answering that question keep in mind that there are 330 million people living in the US. If you give everyone $1,000 a month it will cost you $4 trillion. US tax revenues in 2019 amounted to $3.5 trillion.[0] To put this into perspective: US mandatory spending in 2019 was $2.7 trillion.[1] This is stuff like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans programs etc. You can't just renege on all of these obligations, because the government gave people guarantees on them - that's what they paid taxes for. It's unlikely people would accept less money than what they were promised. Not to mention that you probably couldn't cut Medicare and Medicaid anyway. That's already a trillion gone from the budget. You probably also can't cut much from discretionary spending. You'd be cutting the military and basically every other non-social service the government does. Stuff like NASA and environmental research etc. Ultimately, just $1,000 a month per person would require an enormous budget increase to the tune of >$2 trillion a year. Keep in mind that the US budget deficit is already at $1 trillion a year. You'd have a deficit of $3 trillion or require an enormous tax increase (almost doubling tax revenue). And it still hinges on there being no reduction in productivity. If you then want public healthcare too, then it gets even more expensive. Medicaid covers 64.1 million people[2] at the cost of $409 billion.[1] Getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid and replacing it with healthcare for everyone would add up to an extra cost of ~$1.3 trillion, assuming that the healthcare costs for everyone else is about the same per person as it is for people on Medicaid. "A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking real money." [0] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56324 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56324 [1] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56325 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56325 [2] https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-enrollment-data/report-highlights/index.html https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica...

jimbokun 6y ago

> It goes together with other great ideas like a minimum livable wage[0] Isn't that redundant with UBI? If UBI is already providing a minimum standard of living, then it's mathematically impossible for any wage combined with UBI to be below that standard.

derefr 6y ago
I imagine, in a country with UBI, people wouldn't talk about "minimum livable wage", but rather "minimum livable all-source income." Also, UBI provides a minimum standard of living, but I believe the idea there is that you'd have to make several potentially-drastic changes in your life to truly be living the sort of "minimum" life that it pays for. For example, I believe that UBI isn't supposed to pay out more for people who live in areas of a country with higher costs of living; so part of "living minimally" would be moving to the lowest cost-of-living part of the country. Remember, UBI is usually spoken of as a federal program; whereas "minimum livable wage" is usually modelled by state or even by city. So it'd make sense to talk about needing a certain level of wages, above-and-beyond your UBI, to survive in a high cost-of-living area. (What would happen if UBI was based on regional cost-of-living? Well, for one thing, we'd see a lot of people who either don't "live where they live", but instead consistently renew their IDs within the highest cost-of-living areas; or, if the controls are tighter, we'd see people migrating to high cost-of-living areas to live out of their cars in the middle of them, to save up the most money.)
- RunningDroid 6y ago
  > (What would happen if UBI was based on regional cost-of-living? Well, for one thing, we'd see a lot of people who either don't "live where they live", but instead consistently renew their IDs within the highest cost-of-living areas; or, if the controls are tighter, we'd see people migrating to high cost-of-living areas to live out of their cars in the middle of them, to save up the most money.) IMO those would be exploited infrequently enough that it would be worth it to base it on regional cost-of-living and tighten the controls until exploitation falls below an acceptable level.
  - 6y ago

ouid 6y ago

My understanding of basic income is a bit different. The average American adult needs to make 1500/month to meet the basic requirements of life. This is equivalent to paying off a mortgage over the term of your life of about $500,000, or student loans to the tune of $250,000. (I used an annuity calculator for these figures https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity-calculator.aspx https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity-calcu...). Basic income can be distilled to notion that, if student loans are bad for humanity, then it is reasonable to suggest that this intrinsic debt might also be bad.