5 ms·

Follow the money and second and third order consequences rather than simply trusting the claims. Where does the money come from? What happens when the source of

Follow the money and second and third order consequences rather than simply trusting the claims. Where does the money come from? What happens when the source of that money disappears? There's a well known saying in economics: tax what you want less of, subsidise what you want more of. I think that saying has merit and one doesn't need to look very hard to find evidence to support it. Suppose we apply it to UBI? Could it not be said that we'd be taxing wealth/success/innovation and subsidising idleness? If the saying does indeed have merit, what do you suppose the downstream consequences would be? So far, you seem to be focusing on the "gimme free stuff" aspect of UBI, not who pays for it. Millionaires and billionaires only have a limited amount of money we can steal. Once it's gone - it's gone. Then where does the funding for the next year come from? The next Bezos won't fail to notice this and might (understandably) decide the juice ain't worth the squeeze. Or more cynically, none of this will affect the billionaire class as they will structure and/or relocate their assets to mitigate the losses. UBI only works by taking $3000 from you and giving $1000 back to you, and $1000 each to your two unemployed neighbors until you decide to quit and just rely on UBI from the guy across the street, until he quits...

nly 3y ago
Presumably if the money dries up (because there aren't enough goods and services produced to tax) then you just get inflation as the demand allowed by the UBI payments exceeds supply of said goods and services.
emmacharp 3y ago
Your comment infers that the great majority of citizens will just stop working altogether. But that's a wrong assumption. Multiple studies (and even logic) shows that the average person does not want to keep idle. You want to contribute to something. So, why would they stop working if the pay's good? Or, what does it say about our current system if everybody stops working if you get bare subsistence for free?
JieJie 3y ago
Taxation to support UBI is, as you point out, problematic. However, there is a long-running UBI project in the United States that we have a ton of data on. The Alaska Permanent Fund, which takes profits from selling off the natural resources of Alaska and distributing those profits to citizens of Alaska. The ideal with UBI is that we take the profits from Generative AI, for instance, and distribute them to people. Ideally, the population that have lost the ability to support themselves, because they've been replaced by Generative AI. "The PFD is a Basic Income in the form of a resource dividend. Some researchers argue, "It has helped Alaska attain the highest economic equality of any state in the United States... And, seemingly unnoticed, it has provided unconditional cash assistance to needy Alaskans at a time when most states have scaled back aid and increased conditionality." A 2018 paper found that the Alaska Permanent Fund "dividend had no effect on employment, and increased part-time work by 1.8 percentage points (17 percent)... our results suggest that a universal and permanent cash transfer does not significantly decrease aggregate employment." A 2019 study found "a 14% increase in substance-abuse incidents the day after the [Alaska Permanent Fund] payment and a 10% increase over the following four weeks. This is partially offset by a 8% decrease in property crime, with no changes in violent crimes. On an annual basis, however, changes in criminal activity from the payment are small. Estimated costs comprise a very small portion of the total payment, suggesting that crime-related concerns of a universal cash transfer program may be unwarranted."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

nly 3y ago

Presumably if the money dries up (because there aren't enough goods and services produced to tax) then you just get inflation as the demand allowed by the UBI payments exceeds supply of said goods and services.

emmacharp 3y ago

Your comment infers that the great majority of citizens will just stop working altogether. But that's a wrong assumption. Multiple studies (and even logic) shows that the average person does not want to keep idle. You want to contribute to something. So, why would they stop working if the pay's good? Or, what does it say about our current system if everybody stops working if you get bare subsistence for free?

JieJie 3y ago

Taxation to support UBI is, as you point out, problematic. However, there is a long-running UBI project in the United States that we have a ton of data on. The Alaska Permanent Fund, which takes profits from selling off the natural resources of Alaska and distributing those profits to citizens of Alaska. The ideal with UBI is that we take the profits from Generative AI, for instance, and distribute them to people. Ideally, the population that have lost the ability to support themselves, because they've been replaced by Generative AI. "The PFD is a Basic Income in the form of a resource dividend. Some researchers argue, "It has helped Alaska attain the highest economic equality of any state in the United States... And, seemingly unnoticed, it has provided unconditional cash assistance to needy Alaskans at a time when most states have scaled back aid and increased conditionality." A 2018 paper found that the Alaska Permanent Fund "dividend had no effect on employment, and increased part-time work by 1.8 percentage points (17 percent)... our results suggest that a universal and permanent cash transfer does not significantly decrease aggregate employment." A 2019 study found "a 14% increase in substance-abuse incidents the day after the [Alaska Permanent Fund] payment and a 10% increase over the following four weeks. This is partially offset by a 8% decrease in property crime, with no changes in violent crimes. On an annual basis, however, changes in criminal activity from the payment are small. Estimated costs comprise a very small portion of the total payment, suggesting that crime-related concerns of a universal cash transfer program may be unwarranted."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund