3 ms·

By this do you mean you think money is better spent by giving people food stamps, subsidized housing, and the like as opposed to simply giving someone cash? UB

by least 4y ago

By this do you mean you think money is better spent by giving people food stamps, subsidized housing, and the like as opposed to simply giving someone cash? UBI is not only more humane but also creates less overhead than the alternative of the government having to figure out not only how to allocate the funds, but how to actually distribute it to people that need it. Welfare is a complex system and there's a lot of available funding to different "targeted programs" but the burden of knowledge is placed on the people who need the assistance to seek those out. I find that burden unreasonable.

mjn 4y ago
This is the reason UBI was historically popular among (some) libertarians, even though most current proponents in the U.S. probably come from some variety of left-liberalism or market socialism. Milton Friedman supported a version of UBI as a replacement for the welfare state, for example. His view was that if you think it's the role of the state to provide some minimum floor for standard of living, fine. But instead of trying to administer a dozen different programs with complex eligibility requirements and a whole bureaucracy behind them (food stamps, public housing, housing vouchers, Medicaid, etc.), it would be more efficient, less economically distorting, and less invasive into the lives of the recipients, to just pick whatever level of spending you're willing to put towards this goal, and give it out as unrestricted cash.
- least 4y ago
  I am a big fan of Friedman and I think the negative income tax is probably the best form of UBI since it doesn't create much disincentive to find work. The numbers would have to be just so which can be tricky, which does make it a bit more complicated. There is of course some concern about how you'd implement a negative income tax and how that kind of thing could reach the homeless.
  - millimeterman 4y ago
    A negative income tax is equivalent to UBI combined with increased taxes on mid to top bracket earners. There are some practical concerns such as potential administrative waste from having to distribute and then immediately tax away UBI money or ensuring that NIT is set up to not strain the already extremely tight liquidity/cashflow of low income households (also a problem with the EITC). > There is of course some concern about how you'd implement a negative income tax The machinery for this already exists due to the EITC. Expanding it to people without employment is a valid concern, but tax rebates based on income are not a totally foreign idea.

by least 4y ago

mjn 4y ago

This is the reason UBI was historically popular among (some) libertarians, even though most current proponents in the U.S. probably come from some variety of left-liberalism or market socialism. Milton Friedman supported a version of UBI as a replacement for the welfare state, for example. His view was that if you think it's the role of the state to provide some minimum floor for standard of living, fine. But instead of trying to administer a dozen different programs with complex eligibility requirements and a whole bureaucracy behind them (food stamps, public housing, housing vouchers, Medicaid, etc.), it would be more efficient, less economically distorting, and less invasive into the lives of the recipients, to just pick whatever level of spending you're willing to put towards this goal, and give it out as unrestricted cash.

least 4y ago
I am a big fan of Friedman and I think the negative income tax is probably the best form of UBI since it doesn't create much disincentive to find work. The numbers would have to be just so which can be tricky, which does make it a bit more complicated. There is of course some concern about how you'd implement a negative income tax and how that kind of thing could reach the homeless.
- millimeterman 4y ago
  A negative income tax is equivalent to UBI combined with increased taxes on mid to top bracket earners. There are some practical concerns such as potential administrative waste from having to distribute and then immediately tax away UBI money or ensuring that NIT is set up to not strain the already extremely tight liquidity/cashflow of low income households (also a problem with the EITC). > There is of course some concern about how you'd implement a negative income tax The machinery for this already exists due to the EITC. Expanding it to people without employment is a valid concern, but tax rebates based on income are not a totally foreign idea.