3 ms·

A UBI is a disasterous interference in the market and will yield a net zero result. In the same way the push to raise the minimum wage was negated by the rise o

A UBI is a disasterous interference in the market and will yield a net zero result. In the same way the push to raise the minimum wage was negated by the rise of inflation, the market is simply not going to leave a UBI on the table. That's money to be taken. If the rent of an apartment is $500, and the government gives a person a UBI of $500, then it is logical and legal for that apartment to now rent for $1,000. What benefit has been gained? Zero. What if the apartment then went to $1,500? The UBI is still useless. Cars, food, household goods, clothing, you name it, will see an increase in price to account for the additional income in the market. We're back to square one and wasted a tremendous amount of money in the process, and destabilized the economy. A UBI is a horrible idea.

scarmig 4y ago
> If the rent of an apartment is $500, and the government gives a person a UBI of $500, then it is logical and legal for that apartment to now rent for $1,000. What benefit has been gained? Zero. What if the apartment then went to $1,500? The UBI is still useless. If the rent of an apartment is $500, and the government doesn't give a UBI, then it is logical and legal for that apartment to now rent for $1,000. Obviously landlords always can and want to raise rents, but market competition keeps them from raising prices arbitrarily. Rents would increase, but not by the full value of the grant, unless you have some pretty funny ideas about the inelasticities involved. What would happen is an aggregate shift in consumption and investments away from luxuries to necessities, as richer people have money that would compete for luxuries taxed and redirected toward poorer people who would then spend it on necessities they were forgoing for financial reasons. More money chasing inferior goods, less money chasing superior goods. (This is all assuming that the new spending is fiscally neutral i.e. funded by taxes.)
- jonhohle 4y ago
  Read through comments where the math is being done. Even the most basic UBI (say $500/month) would immediately become the most expensive item in the federal budget. At $1k/month it’s higher than the top three combined, which currently are nearly half the budget. Are you proposing a 80-90% increase in tax revenues (the federal budget is currently ≈50% higher than collected taxes)?
  - scarmig 4y ago
    I'm pointing out that the parent comment has some bad economics in it, not arguing one way or another about whether we should have a UBI or how it should be funded.

scarmig 4y ago

> If the rent of an apartment is $500, and the government gives a person a UBI of $500, then it is logical and legal for that apartment to now rent for $1,000. What benefit has been gained? Zero. What if the apartment then went to $1,500? The UBI is still useless. If the rent of an apartment is $500, and the government doesn't give a UBI, then it is logical and legal for that apartment to now rent for $1,000. Obviously landlords always can and want to raise rents, but market competition keeps them from raising prices arbitrarily. Rents would increase, but not by the full value of the grant, unless you have some pretty funny ideas about the inelasticities involved. What would happen is an aggregate shift in consumption and investments away from luxuries to necessities, as richer people have money that would compete for luxuries taxed and redirected toward poorer people who would then spend it on necessities they were forgoing for financial reasons. More money chasing inferior goods, less money chasing superior goods. (This is all assuming that the new spending is fiscally neutral i.e. funded by taxes.)

jonhohle 4y ago
Read through comments where the math is being done. Even the most basic UBI (say $500/month) would immediately become the most expensive item in the federal budget. At $1k/month it’s higher than the top three combined, which currently are nearly half the budget. Are you proposing a 80-90% increase in tax revenues (the federal budget is currently ≈50% higher than collected taxes)?
- scarmig 4y ago
  I'm pointing out that the parent comment has some bad economics in it, not arguing one way or another about whether we should have a UBI or how it should be funded.