5 ms·

the best argument I've heard for UBI is that it reduces the overhead of administering the allocation of benefits that we are going to provide anyway. Right now,

the best argument I've heard for UBI is that it reduces the overhead of administering the allocation of benefits that we are going to provide anyway. Right now, much administration is dedicated to validating that an entitlement exists and can be proven. under a UBI regime, less of the money would be spent on administration because entitlement is seen as a given. In a way, advocating for UBI is advocating for smaller government. Allocating UBI to everyone and taxing earnings to a greater extent seems to possibly result in less overhead for the same outcome.

bmeski 5y ago
Good luck getting rid of the current admin staff. They won't leave without a fight.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Considering they'd be getting UBI, maybe just make it high enough they'd leave willingly.
- jhayward 5y ago
  It's not clear that the staff would have to be fired. Their work can just be directed to more directly helpful things, such as helping people find jobs, training, child care, etc. rather than operating some arcane qualifying system of dozens of poorly integrated gatekeepers.
annoyingnoob 5y ago
The real question is how we pay for UBI. UBI, being universal, means everyone gets money. Where does that money come from, including over time and into the future? How much do we spend on the benefits that are currently validated including the admin overhead? How much would be spent on UBI? I'm guessing that we don't spend as much on that admin overhead as we would under a UBI plan that includes everyone.
- mLuby 5y ago
  > Where does that money come from? The simple answer is taxes. Companies don't get UBI since they're inhuman. And rich people will almost certainly pay more in taxes more than they receive in UBI. > I'm guessing that we don't spend as much on that admin overhead as we would under a UBI plan that includes everyone. My intuition says the opposite. Speaking in startup terms, it's significantly easier to roll out a new feature to all users, or offer a discount to all customers, or enact a policy for all employees than it is to create two or more groups to determine who gets what. Though our guesses disagree, I'd hope we could agree to experimentally test the hypothesis, and to enact policy based on what the data show.
  - annoyingnoob 5y ago
    I want to help the less fortunate. I don't think our Reaganomics style tax structure where the rich pay less taxes is going to support UBI. If we just throw out our existing tax policy and replace it with something less complicated and fair then we don't need UBI.
- jchrisa 5y ago
  Here's a quick blog post with a link to more depth, on how UBI can be good for the economy. https://www.scottsantens.com/the-cost-of-universal-basic-income-is-the-net-transfer-amount-not-the-gross-price-tag https://www.scottsantens.com/the-cost-of-universal-basic-inc... In computing terms, I like to think that monetary flows are how the market shares information. So having more people "in the game" will increase the fidelity of the information, opening new markets. For example, discount retail might be able to serve more specialty niches.
- CraigJPerry 5y ago
  In the uk we spent £2.6bn on staffing the department for work and pensions in 2017 and for that 2.6bn cost they dispensed £1.9bn to “job seekers allowance” claimants (unemployment benefit). The 2.6bn is staffing costs only, it ignores e.g. fines and legal costs for when the dwp gets things wrong. The dwp was wrong almost 400 times per day, every day of the year if you count the tribunal rulings against them in 2017. UBI seems cheap.
magila 5y ago
Realistically most benefits would not be replaced with UBI. People are not going to accept letting people who blow their UBI payments starve in the streets or go without medical treatment. The majority of benefits, including the most expensive (Medicare and Medicaid), would remain.

bmeski 5y ago

Good luck getting rid of the current admin staff. They won't leave without a fight.

iammisc 5y ago
Considering they'd be getting UBI, maybe just make it high enough they'd leave willingly.
jhayward 5y ago
It's not clear that the staff would have to be fired. Their work can just be directed to more directly helpful things, such as helping people find jobs, training, child care, etc. rather than operating some arcane qualifying system of dozens of poorly integrated gatekeepers.

annoyingnoob 5y ago

The real question is how we pay for UBI. UBI, being universal, means everyone gets money. Where does that money come from, including over time and into the future? How much do we spend on the benefits that are currently validated including the admin overhead? How much would be spent on UBI? I'm guessing that we don't spend as much on that admin overhead as we would under a UBI plan that includes everyone.

mLuby 5y ago
> Where does that money come from? The simple answer is taxes. Companies don't get UBI since they're inhuman. And rich people will almost certainly pay more in taxes more than they receive in UBI. > I'm guessing that we don't spend as much on that admin overhead as we would under a UBI plan that includes everyone. My intuition says the opposite. Speaking in startup terms, it's significantly easier to roll out a new feature to all users, or offer a discount to all customers, or enact a policy for all employees than it is to create two or more groups to determine who gets what. Though our guesses disagree, I'd hope we could agree to experimentally test the hypothesis, and to enact policy based on what the data show.
- annoyingnoob 5y ago
  I want to help the less fortunate. I don't think our Reaganomics style tax structure where the rich pay less taxes is going to support UBI. If we just throw out our existing tax policy and replace it with something less complicated and fair then we don't need UBI.
jchrisa 5y ago
Here's a quick blog post with a link to more depth, on how UBI can be good for the economy. https://www.scottsantens.com/the-cost-of-universal-basic-income-is-the-net-transfer-amount-not-the-gross-price-tag https://www.scottsantens.com/the-cost-of-universal-basic-inc... In computing terms, I like to think that monetary flows are how the market shares information. So having more people "in the game" will increase the fidelity of the information, opening new markets. For example, discount retail might be able to serve more specialty niches.
CraigJPerry 5y ago
In the uk we spent £2.6bn on staffing the department for work and pensions in 2017 and for that 2.6bn cost they dispensed £1.9bn to “job seekers allowance” claimants (unemployment benefit). The 2.6bn is staffing costs only, it ignores e.g. fines and legal costs for when the dwp gets things wrong. The dwp was wrong almost 400 times per day, every day of the year if you count the tribunal rulings against them in 2017. UBI seems cheap.

magila 5y ago

Realistically most benefits would not be replaced with UBI. People are not going to accept letting people who blow their UBI payments starve in the streets or go without medical treatment. The majority of benefits, including the most expensive (Medicare and Medicaid), would remain.