3 ms·

And this is why UBI was supported by right leaning economists like Milton Friedman. If we believe that people in wealthy societies should have a minimal standar

And this is why UBI was supported by right leaning economists like Milton Friedman. If we believe that people in wealthy societies should have a minimal standard of living including basic food, housing and health care then we can provide it through the market in the form of a basic income It will avoid the perverse incentives that lead people to get costly health care in the ER (which is then covered by other patients) instead of having health insurance and receiving preventative care It can prevent people from avoiding getting a higher income lest they start earning too much to qualify for the social programs they depend on No UBI won't fix all problems - but it may very well pay for itself through better externalities

manigandham 6y ago
Friedman proposed a negative income tax which is different, and arguably better, than a standard flat payment.
- balfirevic 6y ago
  It's barely distinguishable from UBI for any practical purpose.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Not really. It scales with income, motivates working, is more fair, and avoids a blanket handout which would just raise the prices of everything in response.
    - balfirevic 6y ago
      I think you are confused about how either UBI or negative income tax works. The most important difference is that negative income tax would do payouts once a year, and even that is not a hard requirement. Other differences are accounting differences and not practical differences in how much money people have available (as they can be made identical by tweaking the tax rates and tax brackets).
      - manigandham 6y ago
        Of course both programs will guarantee a certain income, that’s the point after all. But UBI decreases motivation while also inflating the cost of goods and services so that they rise to meet the new money supply. NIT avoids both problems by scaling with income. It provides motivation without paying every one. More fair, less cost, and better purchasing power.
        balfirevic 6y ago
        You are, frankly, just making stuff up. UBI proposals are not necessarily (nor usually) funded by creating new money supply.
        manigandham 6y ago
        Perhaps that was the wrong wording, but giving everyone money would only inflate costs as they rise to meet the new income levels (whether that money is printed or redistributed). What else are you claiming is made up?
        balfirevic 6y ago
        > What else are you claiming is made up "Motivates working, avoids a blanket handout which would just raise the prices of everything in response" "More fair, less cost, and better purchasing power" I mean that it's a made up difference between UBI and NIT, they are simply equal in this regard, for better or for worse. It makes no sense that they would be different, as the net money flow between individual (or household) and the government can be made exactly the same between UBI and NIT scheme, and how much money someone actually has in their hands is what determines motivation, fairness, purchasing power, inflation etc. Under UBI: NetMonthlyIncome = income + UBI - taxes_ubi(income) Under NIT (where taxes_nit can yield a negative value): NetMonthlyIncome = income - taxes_nit(income) You can make taxes_ubi(income) == taxes_nit(income) + UBI and you get the same exact real life result, it's just that the accounting is different.
        6y ago

manigandham 6y ago

Friedman proposed a negative income tax which is different, and arguably better, than a standard flat payment.

balfirevic 6y ago
It's barely distinguishable from UBI for any practical purpose.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Not really. It scales with income, motivates working, is more fair, and avoids a blanket handout which would just raise the prices of everything in response.
  - balfirevic 6y ago
    I think you are confused about how either UBI or negative income tax works. The most important difference is that negative income tax would do payouts once a year, and even that is not a hard requirement. Other differences are accounting differences and not practical differences in how much money people have available (as they can be made identical by tweaking the tax rates and tax brackets).
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Of course both programs will guarantee a certain income, that’s the point after all. But UBI decreases motivation while also inflating the cost of goods and services so that they rise to meet the new money supply. NIT avoids both problems by scaling with income. It provides motivation without paying every one. More fair, less cost, and better purchasing power.
      - balfirevic 6y ago
        You are, frankly, just making stuff up. UBI proposals are not necessarily (nor usually) funded by creating new money supply.
        manigandham 6y ago
        Perhaps that was the wrong wording, but giving everyone money would only inflate costs as they rise to meet the new income levels (whether that money is printed or redistributed). What else are you claiming is made up?
        balfirevic 6y ago
        > What else are you claiming is made up "Motivates working, avoids a blanket handout which would just raise the prices of everything in response" "More fair, less cost, and better purchasing power" I mean that it's a made up difference between UBI and NIT, they are simply equal in this regard, for better or for worse. It makes no sense that they would be different, as the net money flow between individual (or household) and the government can be made exactly the same between UBI and NIT scheme, and how much money someone actually has in their hands is what determines motivation, fairness, purchasing power, inflation etc. Under UBI: NetMonthlyIncome = income + UBI - taxes_ubi(income) Under NIT (where taxes_nit can yield a negative value): NetMonthlyIncome = income - taxes_nit(income) You can make taxes_ubi(income) == taxes_nit(income) + UBI and you get the same exact real life result, it's just that the accounting is different.
        6y ago