7 ms·

But this is not what basic income is about, is it? As far as I know, basic income means that everybody receives a fixed income, rich or poor. What happens in D

But this is not what basic income is about, is it? As far as I know, basic income means that everybody receives a fixed income, rich or poor. What happens in Denver is just a social project, the only thing mildly special about it is that recipients didn't have to do anything in return. But there have been many of such projects in countries all over the world.

meheleventyone 3y ago
Giving everyone a basic income is more commonly called Universal Basic Income.
- neffy 3y ago
  Or a pension.
  - itishappy 3y ago
    Pensions are gated by age.
    - permo-w 3y ago
      and depend on how much you put into them
      - itishappy 3y ago
        Not always! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_pension https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_pension
        permo-w 3y ago
        true
- Detrytus 3y ago
  But they are not giving it to everyone, just to homeless people. That does not warrant the "Universal" part of the name. EDIT: I think I misread the whole thing, it really does not say "Universal" anywhere :) Anyway, I think someone, soon will try to use this project as an argument in favor of UBI, which is ridiculous.
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    Right, which is why it doesn't...have "Universal" in the name, and is referred to as a "Basic Income Project"
    - pdonis 3y ago
      Right, which is why claiming that this is a study of "universal basic income", as the GGP claimed, is wrong.
  - meheleventyone 3y ago
    Exactly which is why the complaint the OP is making makes no sense. It’s Denver’s Basic Income Project and explicit in who gets it so complaining that it’s not universal is silly.
  - suprjami 3y ago
    That's probably why it's called "Basic Income Project" and not "Universal Basic Income Project".
  - itishappy 3y ago
    > I think someone, soon will try to use this project as an argument in favor of UBI, which is ridiculous. Why's that ridiculous? Testing a small scale trial on the people most likely to be effected by a larger scale program seems pretty reasonable to me.
    - Detrytus 3y ago
      But the UBI works completely different at small and large scales. When you test it at small scale it seems to be working exactly as expected. But when you try to introduce it globally (I mean, for the whole country), then it suddenly starts affecting economy as whole, and the only result you get is inflation, and no one is better of with UBI compared to their previous situation. When the news breaks that everyone will be getting free money the natural reaction of all the sellers and service providers is to raise prices. I mean, I know UBI haven't been tried at whole country scale, but the populist government in my country came pretty close, trying to bribe people with things like social security payments for parents (you get paid a pretty penny monthly for each child you have), or giving extra pension raises to retired people - basically giving away free money to everyone. And guess what? Inflation in my country peaked at 19% in February, luckily it fell down to like 8% in September.
imnotdang 3y ago
[flagged]
dools 3y ago
Yep it’s just another means tested transfer payment. When you drill into it basic income advocates are just pushing for less punitive welfare. It’s a noble goal but not especially novel. What we need is a job guarantee: http://www.jobguarantee.org/ http://www.jobguarantee.org/
- paulddraper 3y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sbw0lZ9LmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sbw0lZ9LmY
jrflowers 3y ago
You bring up a good point. This project is indeed not another completely different project that it has made no claims to be. In a similar vein, this is not the Alan Partridge Project, which is a band, and that fact was not mentioned in this article, furthering my initial confusion.
aimor 3y ago
This is still a study about UBI, it's looking at differences based on how the income is delivered. A part of UBI, different from other types of aid, is that the recipient can spend the money however they see fit. There are question about how well this will work. Will the recipients benefit or suffer by not being restricted in how they spend? Will they benefit or suffer by being given the money all at once at the beginning of the year vs receiving monthly sums? These are good questions without obvious answers. If you want to understand more about their study, their methods are available. It answers a lot of the comments below. They do make a distinction and call this "Guaranteed Basic Income" since it targets a subset population: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef8853a/t/6511e533a92d736d75e5288f/1695671603558/DBIP%2BResearch%2BMethods_public.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef88... https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research
- pdonis 3y ago
  > This is still a study about UBI No, it isn't. You can't study UBI by giving income to people who don't currently have income. To study universal basic income, you have to give it to everybody--the same amount--including people who already have income, even people who don't need any additional income. And then you can look at all of the effects, negative (people ceasing to work, or not working as much, because they are now guaranteed a certain amount of income independent of how much they work--meaning that overall production of goods and services might go down even as demand goes up) as well as positive (people who previously didn't have income now having it and therefore having more options). Studying having the spending of the income not be restricted might be worth doing, but that still doesn't make it a study of UBI, because having the spending be unrestricted is not the critical feature of UBI. We already have social programs that give income whose spending is unrestricted, such as SSI and SSDI. What we don't currently have is a program that gives the same income to everybody regardless of need or anything else. That is the key feature of UBI that would need to be studied if you want to claim to be "studying UBI".
  - mongol 3y ago
    Also, you need to consider how it is payed for. It does not just mean that everyone suddenly have an additional income on top of everything they used to have. You now also have money circulating in the economy in new patterns. And you also have new taxation used to finance it. Taken together, this will impact prices and costs, and will drive inflation. The effect cannot easily be predicted. But looking at individual behaviour in a limited experiment where everything else stays the same does not cut it.
EGreg 3y ago
They keep changing the U in Universal to Unconditional, or taking it out altogether, such as with https://mayorsforagi.org https://mayorsforagi.org which is means-tested
- deathanatos 3y ago
  Any UBI proposal is means-tested pretty much by definition.
  - pseudalopex 3y ago
    What definition of means testing includes everyone?
    - deathanatos 3y ago
      UBI is cannot be truly universal: you have to pay for it, which is sort of what I mean by saying it is means-tested isn't too far from the truth. Those who pay "into" UBI more than what they receive from it are "failing" the means-test here; those who get more UBI than they pay into it in taxes are "passing" the means test. (Now, obviously, taxes are kind of a grab-bag: it is hard to see, directly, how much of your tax dollars go to any one particular appropriation. But the point stands, and I think an easy approximation would be taxes paid * (UBI paid out / total appropriations) or so.) UBI is essentially equivalent to having a negative tax bracket, and that bracket would only apply to some people. Necessarily to compensate for that bracket, some or all of the upper brackets must go up, in order to fund the lower bracket. I.e., if the government writes everybody a $10k check, but due to doing that I now owe $15k more in tax obligations each year … I've not in any material way received UBI, even if there's a $10k check in my account. Like, if you just wrote everyone a $10k check per year the resulting national debt alone would be absurd…? How would that work?
Aurornis 3y ago
> As far as I know, basic income means that everybody receives a fixed income, rich or poor. People frame it like that, but in practice it would be offset by increased taxes for most. For example, everyone gets $20,000 per year as "universal" basic income. However, your taxes go up $20,000 per year or more because you weren't in the lowest tax bracket. We have to pay for the UBI somehow. UBI of a substantial amount would be incredibly expensive. Expensive to the point that the taxes would have to dip all the way down into the middle class to make it work. So for the average person, that UBI would come in and then go right back out as taxes.
- davidrupp 3y ago
  What's a scenario in which adding $20K to my income results in more than $20K in additional taxes? The highest marginal tax rate in the U.S. for 2023 is 37%, and it kicks in after about $578K for a single filer. So increasing my income by $20K increases my tax bill by at most 37% of $20K.
  - Aurornis 3y ago
    We can't give everyone $20K without raising taxes. The money has to come from somewhere. Taxes would go up to pay for it. You can't have both UBI and the current tax rates.
    - psd1 3y ago
      Realistically you may be correct - however, it is within the realms of possibility that enabling poor people to take part in the economy will drive value creation, and that this increase to the tax base could fund UBI. Stock buy-backs don't create any value, or, if they do, it is obscure to me. You may get a one-time bump in capital gains tax, but it's nothing to build an economy on. A million new dishwashers, though - that's taxable profit and increased emploment. Could UBI drive a virtuous cycle in which everyone gets richer? It certainly looks from here like inequality fundamentally shrinks the pie, even if it works out nicely for some eaters.
      - 3y ago

meheleventyone 3y ago

Giving everyone a basic income is more commonly called Universal Basic Income.

neffy 3y ago
Or a pension.
- itishappy 3y ago
  Pensions are gated by age.
  - permo-w 3y ago
    and depend on how much you put into them
    - itishappy 3y ago
      Not always! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_pension https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_pension
      - permo-w 3y ago
        true
Detrytus 3y ago
But they are not giving it to everyone, just to homeless people. That does not warrant the "Universal" part of the name. EDIT: I think I misread the whole thing, it really does not say "Universal" anywhere :) Anyway, I think someone, soon will try to use this project as an argument in favor of UBI, which is ridiculous.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  Right, which is why it doesn't...have "Universal" in the name, and is referred to as a "Basic Income Project"
  - pdonis 3y ago
    Right, which is why claiming that this is a study of "universal basic income", as the GGP claimed, is wrong.
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  Exactly which is why the complaint the OP is making makes no sense. It’s Denver’s Basic Income Project and explicit in who gets it so complaining that it’s not universal is silly.
- suprjami 3y ago
  That's probably why it's called "Basic Income Project" and not "Universal Basic Income Project".
- itishappy 3y ago
  > I think someone, soon will try to use this project as an argument in favor of UBI, which is ridiculous. Why's that ridiculous? Testing a small scale trial on the people most likely to be effected by a larger scale program seems pretty reasonable to me.
  - Detrytus 3y ago
    But the UBI works completely different at small and large scales. When you test it at small scale it seems to be working exactly as expected. But when you try to introduce it globally (I mean, for the whole country), then it suddenly starts affecting economy as whole, and the only result you get is inflation, and no one is better of with UBI compared to their previous situation. When the news breaks that everyone will be getting free money the natural reaction of all the sellers and service providers is to raise prices. I mean, I know UBI haven't been tried at whole country scale, but the populist government in my country came pretty close, trying to bribe people with things like social security payments for parents (you get paid a pretty penny monthly for each child you have), or giving extra pension raises to retired people - basically giving away free money to everyone. And guess what? Inflation in my country peaked at 19% in February, luckily it fell down to like 8% in September.

imnotdang 3y ago

[flagged]

dools 3y ago

Yep it’s just another means tested transfer payment. When you drill into it basic income advocates are just pushing for less punitive welfare. It’s a noble goal but not especially novel. What we need is a job guarantee: http://www.jobguarantee.org/ http://www.jobguarantee.org/

paulddraper 3y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sbw0lZ9LmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sbw0lZ9LmY

jrflowers 3y ago

You bring up a good point. This project is indeed not another completely different project that it has made no claims to be. In a similar vein, this is not the Alan Partridge Project, which is a band, and that fact was not mentioned in this article, furthering my initial confusion.

aimor 3y ago

This is still a study about UBI, it's looking at differences based on how the income is delivered. A part of UBI, different from other types of aid, is that the recipient can spend the money however they see fit. There are question about how well this will work. Will the recipients benefit or suffer by not being restricted in how they spend? Will they benefit or suffer by being given the money all at once at the beginning of the year vs receiving monthly sums? These are good questions without obvious answers. If you want to understand more about their study, their methods are available. It answers a lot of the comments below. They do make a distinction and call this "Guaranteed Basic Income" since it targets a subset population: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef8853a/t/6511e533a92d736d75e5288f/1695671603558/DBIP%2BResearch%2BMethods_public.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef88... https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research

pdonis 3y ago
> This is still a study about UBI No, it isn't. You can't study UBI by giving income to people who don't currently have income. To study universal basic income, you have to give it to everybody--the same amount--including people who already have income, even people who don't need any additional income. And then you can look at all of the effects, negative (people ceasing to work, or not working as much, because they are now guaranteed a certain amount of income independent of how much they work--meaning that overall production of goods and services might go down even as demand goes up) as well as positive (people who previously didn't have income now having it and therefore having more options). Studying having the spending of the income not be restricted might be worth doing, but that still doesn't make it a study of UBI, because having the spending be unrestricted is not the critical feature of UBI. We already have social programs that give income whose spending is unrestricted, such as SSI and SSDI. What we don't currently have is a program that gives the same income to everybody regardless of need or anything else. That is the key feature of UBI that would need to be studied if you want to claim to be "studying UBI".
- mongol 3y ago
  Also, you need to consider how it is payed for. It does not just mean that everyone suddenly have an additional income on top of everything they used to have. You now also have money circulating in the economy in new patterns. And you also have new taxation used to finance it. Taken together, this will impact prices and costs, and will drive inflation. The effect cannot easily be predicted. But looking at individual behaviour in a limited experiment where everything else stays the same does not cut it.

EGreg 3y ago

They keep changing the U in Universal to Unconditional, or taking it out altogether, such as with https://mayorsforagi.org https://mayorsforagi.org which is means-tested

deathanatos 3y ago
Any UBI proposal is means-tested pretty much by definition.
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  What definition of means testing includes everyone?
  - deathanatos 3y ago
    UBI is cannot be truly universal: you have to pay for it, which is sort of what I mean by saying it is means-tested isn't too far from the truth. Those who pay "into" UBI more than what they receive from it are "failing" the means-test here; those who get more UBI than they pay into it in taxes are "passing" the means test. (Now, obviously, taxes are kind of a grab-bag: it is hard to see, directly, how much of your tax dollars go to any one particular appropriation. But the point stands, and I think an easy approximation would be taxes paid * (UBI paid out / total appropriations) or so.) UBI is essentially equivalent to having a negative tax bracket, and that bracket would only apply to some people. Necessarily to compensate for that bracket, some or all of the upper brackets must go up, in order to fund the lower bracket. I.e., if the government writes everybody a $10k check, but due to doing that I now owe $15k more in tax obligations each year … I've not in any material way received UBI, even if there's a $10k check in my account. Like, if you just wrote everyone a $10k check per year the resulting national debt alone would be absurd…? How would that work?

Aurornis 3y ago

> As far as I know, basic income means that everybody receives a fixed income, rich or poor. People frame it like that, but in practice it would be offset by increased taxes for most. For example, everyone gets $20,000 per year as "universal" basic income. However, your taxes go up $20,000 per year or more because you weren't in the lowest tax bracket. We have to pay for the UBI somehow. UBI of a substantial amount would be incredibly expensive. Expensive to the point that the taxes would have to dip all the way down into the middle class to make it work. So for the average person, that UBI would come in and then go right back out as taxes.

davidrupp 3y ago
What's a scenario in which adding $20K to my income results in more than $20K in additional taxes? The highest marginal tax rate in the U.S. for 2023 is 37%, and it kicks in after about $578K for a single filer. So increasing my income by $20K increases my tax bill by at most 37% of $20K.
- Aurornis 3y ago
  We can't give everyone $20K without raising taxes. The money has to come from somewhere. Taxes would go up to pay for it. You can't have both UBI and the current tax rates.
  - psd1 3y ago
    Realistically you may be correct - however, it is within the realms of possibility that enabling poor people to take part in the economy will drive value creation, and that this increase to the tax base could fund UBI. Stock buy-backs don't create any value, or, if they do, it is obscure to me. You may get a one-time bump in capital gains tax, but it's nothing to build an economy on. A million new dishwashers, though - that's taxable profit and increased emploment. Could UBI drive a virtuous cycle in which everyone gets richer? It certainly looks from here like inequality fundamentally shrinks the pie, even if it works out nicely for some eaters.
    - 3y ago