4 ms·

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 unint

by 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.

by xputer 5y ago

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.