7 ms·

That is analogous to the argument favouring UBI as a replacement for usage-restricted (food stamps, scholarships, etc.) and means-tested benefits. Leaving aside

That is analogous to the argument favouring UBI as a replacement for usage-restricted (food stamps, scholarships, etc.) and means-tested benefits. Leaving aside the debate on whether the universality of UBI is sustainable or not, the simplicity of just giving X amount of money to each individual, no questions asked, saves a huge amount of inefficient bureaucratic overhead.

xputer 5y ago
While I agree with the simplicity argument, I think providing a free service is very different from giving everyone free money. UBI is likely to have many unintended consequences. For example, what would be stopping land lords from hiking rent prices? And what would happen to addicts who use their UBI to buy drugs instead of food and shelter?
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  That last one isn't an issue. If an addict needs help, give them medically-based, compassion-built-in free help. If they don't want help and aren't making others unsafe, it isn't my business any more than it is my business if someone donates 10% because their religious organization requires/suggests tithes. People are going to spend money in ways you don't approve of. Period, it is part of life. I truly believe that we, as a society, shouldn't let that take away something that can help a bunch of people.
  - paul_f 5y ago
    The concern many have with UBI is that society will still have to provide all the other social benefits anyway, food stamps, housing, etc, because many people who need UBI likely are not going to spend the money wisely.
- gspr 5y ago
  The second question: asking this question about UBI is as wrong as asking it for salary. It's none of anyone's business. (Well – it's everyone's business in that society should offer addiction help for those who feel they need it, but that's not unique to UBI).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- usrusr 5y ago
  > For example, what would be stopping land lords from hiking rent prices? Exactly the same things that are stopping/not stopping them now? UBI won't magically make everybody non-poor, no matter how you tweak the numbers. But it creates a gentle slope where everything means-tested creates harsh cut-offs full of bad incentives. It prevents many things (even if not all things) that make up the trap-like nature of poverty.
  - ivanche 5y ago
    What is stopping them now exactly? If they know that your family all of a sudden had, for example, $500 more per month, they will simply raise the rent for $500. Similarly, your hairdresser knows you have more money so he will charge more, your mechanic knows you have more money so he will charge more etc. ad infinitum.
    - usrusr 5y ago
      By this logic, people would be scared of buying a good looking car or dressing well.
      - ivanche 5y ago
        Nope. Just because someone has a good car, doesn't mean he has the money. Actually, I would argue that most of the people don't have the money, i.e. they're driving better car then they can afford. And you're assuming that your landlord or hairdresser suddenly know which car you drive, but that is very long assumption. In this case (UBI) literally everybody knows 100% that you have more money than before.
- iamsaitam 5y ago
  There will always be edge cases to every public measure.
- thomasahle 5y ago
  > what would be stopping land lords from hiking rent prices? This argument doesn't seem specific to UBI, but could be raised towards giving anybody money for anything. Maybe some landlords would initially raise prices, but presumably competition or alternative housing options would push the prices down again.
- imtringued 5y ago
  > While I agree with the simplicity argument, I think providing a free service is very different from giving everyone free money. Free public transport is the tragedy of the commons in inverse. Free roads mean public transport can barely compete against cars. The convenience of a car simply cannot be compared to a bus but the real question is, why is it so cheap to drive yourself? Shouldn't it be far more expensive? If people abuse free public transport that is actually a good thing. >For example, what would be stopping land lords from hiking rent prices? Nothing, nobody guarantees that you get to live in the most expensive locations on earth. Please move to a place where your UBI is enough instead of trying to drag down the most productive members of society (indicated by their ability to pay high rents) and by productive I just mean economically (nobody gets to tell how to live your life), which means they are the source of the UBI income in the first place so it is in your best interest to make sure they succeed. >And what would happen to addicts who use their UBI to buy drugs instead of food and shelter? They will rob less stores and houses to fund their drugs.
  - fvdessen 5y ago
    > why is it so cheap to drive yourself? Shouldn't it be far more expensive? If people abuse free public transport that is actually a good thing. Yearly taxes on my car are higher than a yearly public transport pass, yet I still have a car. Public transport could be free, they could even pay me for each trip and I would still have a car, simply because my car takes me to places/times that public transport doesn't. I'm all for public transport, and I use it regularly, but it is not a complete replacement for a car. In fact if you make it free people might even use the savings to buy a bigger car.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
Except, of course, you cannot leave aside the issue of affordability and sustainability, which is by far the main issue of UBI in terms of public finance. If you do then, considering the overall cost of actual UBI, the claim that this saves on bureaucracy is like claiming that spending 100 to save 1 (both on a recurring basis to make it worse) is sensible since it saves 1. This 1 in potential savings is simply irrelevant (and in reality would be replaced by another bureaucracy anyway) because it is dwarfed by the overall additional cost. Or, what you call 'UBI' is just a single benefit to replace a number of existing benefits, like the UK did with "universal credit".
- roenxi 5y ago
  I'm suspicious of the downvotes your comment has attracted - I suppose I'd like to challenge whoever is feeling so negative to explain why they think UBI gets pushback, if not the sustainability aspect? I think everyone agrees that if we all got infinite amounts of free stuff that would be great. Failing that, finite amount of free stuff is good. There are good reasons that despite that we have a pay-as-you-use economy. People keep trying to come up with financial perpetual motion machines where everyone gets lots of free stuff. Much like perpetual motion machines, there are broad principles the limit what is possible - people on average just don't do things if there isn't a reward for doing it, and we need people to first produce the stuff before it can be given away. There are grave questions about whether a UBI can be simultaneously effective (ie, a meaningful amount of money) and also sustainable (ie, not catastrophically dis-incentivise working). It may be possible to do both at once, but that is really the only aspect of the debate worth talking about - otherwise it is a bit of a no brainier for everyone to get free stuff.
  - thomasahle 5y ago
    How about if you need $x money for UBI you raise the taxes by $x. Then what you've done is just redistributing some money from those earning most to those earning the least. If you want a higher income gap between those working and those not working, you can make the income tax negative at the bottom.
iso1631 5y ago
The cost of a system where you decide if someone should receive benefits or not is one thing - how to distribute the budget to those that most benefit. The extra cost in ensuring hose benefits are in specific vouchers for specific things tends not to be necessary from a saving money point of view. But government benefits for poor people are not about providing poor people with the ability to live, it's about controling them - be it company towns or church poor-houses which gave free housing but banned people from say drinking or dancing, to a healthcare system which bans people from leaving their job because they won't get healthcare. (Government benefits for rich people of course are completely different)
akudha 5y ago
I remember getting into a debate with someone when Florida wanted to do drug tests for welfare recipients. She just couldn’t understand the simple math and why it is a waste of money. Also the fact the contract went to a company associated with the governor’s wife, which is probably the real reason for the policy. The kicker? This person herself was on welfare! In her mind, she doesn’t do drugs, so she is morally right in demanding others who do, don’t get any help from government - no matter how small the percentage is. And no matter the cost. Most people (including myself) have very little idea about basic economics. We need to change our attitude towards work, towards helping others etc. somehow it is drilled into our heads that working insane hours is holy. In my opinion, working more than 35 hours per week solely for money is just plain stupid. While sustainability is the biggest question with ideas like UBI, people’s attitude towards work is also a huge hurdle

xputer 5y ago

While I agree with the simplicity argument, I think providing a free service is very different from giving everyone free money. UBI is likely to have many unintended consequences. For example, what would be stopping land lords from hiking rent prices? And what would happen to addicts who use their UBI to buy drugs instead of food and shelter?

Broken_Hippo 5y ago
That last one isn't an issue. If an addict needs help, give them medically-based, compassion-built-in free help. If they don't want help and aren't making others unsafe, it isn't my business any more than it is my business if someone donates 10% because their religious organization requires/suggests tithes. People are going to spend money in ways you don't approve of. Period, it is part of life. I truly believe that we, as a society, shouldn't let that take away something that can help a bunch of people.
- paul_f 5y ago
  The concern many have with UBI is that society will still have to provide all the other social benefits anyway, food stamps, housing, etc, because many people who need UBI likely are not going to spend the money wisely.
gspr 5y ago
The second question: asking this question about UBI is as wrong as asking it for salary. It's none of anyone's business. (Well – it's everyone's business in that society should offer addiction help for those who feel they need it, but that's not unique to UBI).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
usrusr 5y ago
> For example, what would be stopping land lords from hiking rent prices? Exactly the same things that are stopping/not stopping them now? UBI won't magically make everybody non-poor, no matter how you tweak the numbers. But it creates a gentle slope where everything means-tested creates harsh cut-offs full of bad incentives. It prevents many things (even if not all things) that make up the trap-like nature of poverty.
- ivanche 5y ago
  What is stopping them now exactly? If they know that your family all of a sudden had, for example, $500 more per month, they will simply raise the rent for $500. Similarly, your hairdresser knows you have more money so he will charge more, your mechanic knows you have more money so he will charge more etc. ad infinitum.
  - usrusr 5y ago
    By this logic, people would be scared of buying a good looking car or dressing well.
    - ivanche 5y ago
      Nope. Just because someone has a good car, doesn't mean he has the money. Actually, I would argue that most of the people don't have the money, i.e. they're driving better car then they can afford. And you're assuming that your landlord or hairdresser suddenly know which car you drive, but that is very long assumption. In this case (UBI) literally everybody knows 100% that you have more money than before.
iamsaitam 5y ago
There will always be edge cases to every public measure.
thomasahle 5y ago
> what would be stopping land lords from hiking rent prices? This argument doesn't seem specific to UBI, but could be raised towards giving anybody money for anything. Maybe some landlords would initially raise prices, but presumably competition or alternative housing options would push the prices down again.
imtringued 5y ago
> While I agree with the simplicity argument, I think providing a free service is very different from giving everyone free money. Free public transport is the tragedy of the commons in inverse. Free roads mean public transport can barely compete against cars. The convenience of a car simply cannot be compared to a bus but the real question is, why is it so cheap to drive yourself? Shouldn't it be far more expensive? If people abuse free public transport that is actually a good thing. >For example, what would be stopping land lords from hiking rent prices? Nothing, nobody guarantees that you get to live in the most expensive locations on earth. Please move to a place where your UBI is enough instead of trying to drag down the most productive members of society (indicated by their ability to pay high rents) and by productive I just mean economically (nobody gets to tell how to live your life), which means they are the source of the UBI income in the first place so it is in your best interest to make sure they succeed. >And what would happen to addicts who use their UBI to buy drugs instead of food and shelter? They will rob less stores and houses to fund their drugs.
- fvdessen 5y ago
  > why is it so cheap to drive yourself? Shouldn't it be far more expensive? If people abuse free public transport that is actually a good thing. Yearly taxes on my car are higher than a yearly public transport pass, yet I still have a car. Public transport could be free, they could even pay me for each trip and I would still have a car, simply because my car takes me to places/times that public transport doesn't. I'm all for public transport, and I use it regularly, but it is not a complete replacement for a car. In fact if you make it free people might even use the savings to buy a bigger car.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

Except, of course, you cannot leave aside the issue of affordability and sustainability, which is by far the main issue of UBI in terms of public finance. If you do then, considering the overall cost of actual UBI, the claim that this saves on bureaucracy is like claiming that spending 100 to save 1 (both on a recurring basis to make it worse) is sensible since it saves 1. This 1 in potential savings is simply irrelevant (and in reality would be replaced by another bureaucracy anyway) because it is dwarfed by the overall additional cost. Or, what you call 'UBI' is just a single benefit to replace a number of existing benefits, like the UK did with "universal credit".

roenxi 5y ago
I'm suspicious of the downvotes your comment has attracted - I suppose I'd like to challenge whoever is feeling so negative to explain why they think UBI gets pushback, if not the sustainability aspect? I think everyone agrees that if we all got infinite amounts of free stuff that would be great. Failing that, finite amount of free stuff is good. There are good reasons that despite that we have a pay-as-you-use economy. People keep trying to come up with financial perpetual motion machines where everyone gets lots of free stuff. Much like perpetual motion machines, there are broad principles the limit what is possible - people on average just don't do things if there isn't a reward for doing it, and we need people to first produce the stuff before it can be given away. There are grave questions about whether a UBI can be simultaneously effective (ie, a meaningful amount of money) and also sustainable (ie, not catastrophically dis-incentivise working). It may be possible to do both at once, but that is really the only aspect of the debate worth talking about - otherwise it is a bit of a no brainier for everyone to get free stuff.
- thomasahle 5y ago
  How about if you need $x money for UBI you raise the taxes by $x. Then what you've done is just redistributing some money from those earning most to those earning the least. If you want a higher income gap between those working and those not working, you can make the income tax negative at the bottom.

iso1631 5y ago

The cost of a system where you decide if someone should receive benefits or not is one thing - how to distribute the budget to those that most benefit. The extra cost in ensuring hose benefits are in specific vouchers for specific things tends not to be necessary from a saving money point of view. But government benefits for poor people are not about providing poor people with the ability to live, it's about controling them - be it company towns or church poor-houses which gave free housing but banned people from say drinking or dancing, to a healthcare system which bans people from leaving their job because they won't get healthcare. (Government benefits for rich people of course are completely different)

akudha 5y ago

I remember getting into a debate with someone when Florida wanted to do drug tests for welfare recipients. She just couldn’t understand the simple math and why it is a waste of money. Also the fact the contract went to a company associated with the governor’s wife, which is probably the real reason for the policy. The kicker? This person herself was on welfare! In her mind, she doesn’t do drugs, so she is morally right in demanding others who do, don’t get any help from government - no matter how small the percentage is. And no matter the cost. Most people (including myself) have very little idea about basic economics. We need to change our attitude towards work, towards helping others etc. somehow it is drilled into our heads that working insane hours is holy. In my opinion, working more than 35 hours per week solely for money is just plain stupid. While sustainability is the biggest question with ideas like UBI, people’s attitude towards work is also a huge hurdle