5 ms·

I didn't read past the first argument because the author seems to completely misunderstand what UBI is. They plan to give everyone a fixed amount, where I am pr

I didn't read past the first argument because the author seems to completely misunderstand what UBI is. They plan to give everyone a fixed amount, where I am pretty sure UBI is only about replenishing income below a fixed amount. Am I wrong in this or this a very bad article?

DigtalBits 4y ago
I think you're wrong about it. I've always thought UBI was pay everyone X per year (week/month/whatever), as it's simpler than trying to determine who is eligible. The way a party was trying to get it implemented in my country (NZ) was to remove progressive income tax and replace it all with a flat 33%. Combined with the UBI, anyone earning under ~$50k had a huge increase to their yearly income (ubi payment being way higher than the increased tax), and anyone earning over ~$110k had effectively no change in their income (increase in tax roughly equal to the UBI payment). That approach has the same benefit of replenishing low income and not high income, but without the hassle of figuring out who is low and who is high.
- vlunkr 4y ago
  Another benefit of UBI over paying only those below the poverty line is that you aren't de-incentivized from trying to make more money at any point.
  - mcv 4y ago
    Exactly. It think this is the big benefit of UBI. At the moment, many poor people receiving benefits are afraid to lose them because they depend on them. Working might threaten those benefits, and indeed some people moving from some form of welfare to parttime work end up losing purchasing power. With UBI, you always get ahead when you work, and if you don't, you'll always have this basic income to fall back on. I think the concerns of the article are absolutely valid, and we don't want to replace the current system with something that increases poverty or costs too much. But I do think the author is missing the forest for the trees, focusing only on individual details and not the big picture. The goal is not to give everybody a lot of extra money, the goal is to fix the holes in the current patchwork system and replace it with something easier, more fair, and less bureaucratic. Not to mention less patronizing or privacy-invading; things like foodstamps help a lot of people, but the way they're implemented can also be degrading.
timbit42 4y ago
Replenishing income below a fixed amount sounds more like a negative income tax, which I think would be better than a UBI because people who need money will get it while those who don't won't. Also, a NIT incentivizes each person to work as much as they are able because they will always end up with more money if they work, than they'd have if they don't.
- bloggie 4y ago
  Yes I also see it that way, and I see a lot of problems in a universal non-conditional payment to everyone, but now that I have heard of both approaches I wonder which one people are talking about when they mention UBI.

DigtalBits 4y ago

I think you're wrong about it. I've always thought UBI was pay everyone X per year (week/month/whatever), as it's simpler than trying to determine who is eligible. The way a party was trying to get it implemented in my country (NZ) was to remove progressive income tax and replace it all with a flat 33%. Combined with the UBI, anyone earning under ~$50k had a huge increase to their yearly income (ubi payment being way higher than the increased tax), and anyone earning over ~$110k had effectively no change in their income (increase in tax roughly equal to the UBI payment). That approach has the same benefit of replenishing low income and not high income, but without the hassle of figuring out who is low and who is high.

vlunkr 4y ago
Another benefit of UBI over paying only those below the poverty line is that you aren't de-incentivized from trying to make more money at any point.
- mcv 4y ago
  Exactly. It think this is the big benefit of UBI. At the moment, many poor people receiving benefits are afraid to lose them because they depend on them. Working might threaten those benefits, and indeed some people moving from some form of welfare to parttime work end up losing purchasing power. With UBI, you always get ahead when you work, and if you don't, you'll always have this basic income to fall back on. I think the concerns of the article are absolutely valid, and we don't want to replace the current system with something that increases poverty or costs too much. But I do think the author is missing the forest for the trees, focusing only on individual details and not the big picture. The goal is not to give everybody a lot of extra money, the goal is to fix the holes in the current patchwork system and replace it with something easier, more fair, and less bureaucratic. Not to mention less patronizing or privacy-invading; things like foodstamps help a lot of people, but the way they're implemented can also be degrading.

timbit42 4y ago

Replenishing income below a fixed amount sounds more like a negative income tax, which I think would be better than a UBI because people who need money will get it while those who don't won't. Also, a NIT incentivizes each person to work as much as they are able because they will always end up with more money if they work, than they'd have if they don't.

bloggie 4y ago
Yes I also see it that way, and I see a lot of problems in a universal non-conditional payment to everyone, but now that I have heard of both approaches I wonder which one people are talking about when they mention UBI.