3 ms·

You'd think that basic income was a no-brainer on both sides of the aisle. * On the left hand, you don't just get some level of control over maximum income, bu

You'd think that basic income was a no-brainer on both sides of the aisle. * On the left hand, you don't just get some level of control over maximum income, but also can just directly set an income-floor. What more do you want? * On the right hand, for one you're basically giving every entrepreneur a "free" ramen budget for their startup to build on top of. At the same time you can also abolish quite a number of subsidies, reducing the costs of bureaucratic administration.

josephcsible 4y ago
It sounds good on paper, and I used to be in favor of it pre-COVID, but now that a bunch of places basically did it, it's become clear that it leads to way too many people choosing not to work.
- edmcnulty101 4y ago
  This is not accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  I think a number of places gave some one-off subsidies , or even two off (possibly on condition of repay-if-you-can). I'm not sure many places actually initiated a program of unconditional monthly payments under conditions where people were permitted and encouraged to work. (With covid, a lot of the payments were as compensation because people couldn't go to work, so you wouldn't see the effect of encouraging work :-/ )
  - prepend 4y ago
    I had friends who got $2-3k per month in unemployment for over a year. This replaced their pre-COVID income $1-2k/month. It wasn’t perpetual. But they got a raise to not work. And they not only maxed out the benefit but some of them moved back home with family to minimize their costs and banked their unemployment and still aren’t working. They spent their time smoking and playing games. This was unprecedented. I would like to see a study into how frequently this actually happened as I don’t know how common my anecdote is.
imajoredinecon 4y ago
On the other hand, both sides of the aisle can dislike it too: > * On the left hand, you don't just get some level of control over maximum income, but also can just directly set an income-floor. What more do you want? "UBI gives people dollars but takes away their free education and food assistance, so they have to choose how to spend the money. We should explicitly guarantee basic rights, not make people purchase them." > * On the right hand, for one you're basically giving every entrepreneur a "free" ramen budget for their startup to build on top of. At the same time you can also abolish quite a number of subsidies, reducing the costs of bureaucratic administration. "UBI is additional public spending. Giving people UBI doesn't mean they _don't_ get other benefits too. Also, assistance from the state should be limited to things people in unexpected situations desperately need (like food assistance): it's not a good use of taxpayer money to fund Kim_Bruning's next iPhone."
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  On either side of the aisle it should be clear that you're giving politicians an extra lever they can use to manage the economy and prevent undesirable outcomes. Obviously we want to stimulate people's self determination and hard work. On the other hand we don't want people to fall out of the bottom of the system. With UBI in place as an extra tool, this can be tuned much better than without it. Later both sides can argue over how much it should be, and what kinds of thing still needs separate subsidies versus where government spending can be reduced. But now they have an extra policy tool to implement their wishes, whichever side of the aisle they're on. Why wouldn't one pick it up?
anon291 4y ago
> On the right hand, for one you're basically giving every entrepreneur a "free" ramen budget for their startup to build on top of. At the same time you can also abolish quite a number of subsidies, reducing the costs of bureaucratic administration. Too many people here conflate right wing for libertarian.

josephcsible 4y ago

It sounds good on paper, and I used to be in favor of it pre-COVID, but now that a bunch of places basically did it, it's become clear that it leads to way too many people choosing not to work.

edmcnulty101 4y ago
This is not accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots
Kim_Bruning 4y ago
I think a number of places gave some one-off subsidies , or even two off (possibly on condition of repay-if-you-can). I'm not sure many places actually initiated a program of unconditional monthly payments under conditions where people were permitted and encouraged to work. (With covid, a lot of the payments were as compensation because people couldn't go to work, so you wouldn't see the effect of encouraging work :-/ )
- prepend 4y ago
  I had friends who got $2-3k per month in unemployment for over a year. This replaced their pre-COVID income $1-2k/month. It wasn’t perpetual. But they got a raise to not work. And they not only maxed out the benefit but some of them moved back home with family to minimize their costs and banked their unemployment and still aren’t working. They spent their time smoking and playing games. This was unprecedented. I would like to see a study into how frequently this actually happened as I don’t know how common my anecdote is.

imajoredinecon 4y ago

On the other hand, both sides of the aisle can dislike it too: > * On the left hand, you don't just get some level of control over maximum income, but also can just directly set an income-floor. What more do you want? "UBI gives people dollars but takes away their free education and food assistance, so they have to choose how to spend the money. We should explicitly guarantee basic rights, not make people purchase them." > * On the right hand, for one you're basically giving every entrepreneur a "free" ramen budget for their startup to build on top of. At the same time you can also abolish quite a number of subsidies, reducing the costs of bureaucratic administration. "UBI is additional public spending. Giving people UBI doesn't mean they _don't_ get other benefits too. Also, assistance from the state should be limited to things people in unexpected situations desperately need (like food assistance): it's not a good use of taxpayer money to fund Kim_Bruning's next iPhone."

Kim_Bruning 4y ago
On either side of the aisle it should be clear that you're giving politicians an extra lever they can use to manage the economy and prevent undesirable outcomes. Obviously we want to stimulate people's self determination and hard work. On the other hand we don't want people to fall out of the bottom of the system. With UBI in place as an extra tool, this can be tuned much better than without it. Later both sides can argue over how much it should be, and what kinds of thing still needs separate subsidies versus where government spending can be reduced. But now they have an extra policy tool to implement their wishes, whichever side of the aisle they're on. Why wouldn't one pick it up?

anon291 4y ago

> On the right hand, for one you're basically giving every entrepreneur a "free" ramen budget for their startup to build on top of. At the same time you can also abolish quite a number of subsidies, reducing the costs of bureaucratic administration. Too many people here conflate right wing for libertarian.