4 ms·

I don't know much about UBI. How do people generally see it being implemented? Does everyone get the exact same, flat amount? Do only people below a certain in

I don't know much about UBI. How do people generally see it being implemented? Does everyone get the exact same, flat amount? Do only people below a certain income get it? Does the amount gradually decline based on current income? Does the amount change based on cost of living? If someone remains destitute after being given UBI - is that now more clearly "on them," or do they now qualify for additional support? Genuinely curious. It seems like these questions are very challenging to answer in a way that feels good/fair to all involved. (edit, follow up questions:) - If everyone gets the same amount then how would we reach alignment on fair amount if COL in different areas is wildly different? The gap between highest/lowest rent in America is 4x - 800 vs 3200. Said differently, is there a goal outcome with UBI or is the goal to just give out some money? Are we trying to make sure just everyone's rent is covered, rent and food, or just easing the pain a little? - If we give everyone money every month, and that money immediately goes into circulation, doesn't that just cause inflation and then we're right back to where we started?

Bjartr 3y ago
AIUI, if it's not something everyone gets (universal) and it's not the same amount for everyone (basic), it's not UBI.
- SeanAnderson 3y ago
  Thanks. The clarification that basic means same amount for everyone is helpful.
beardyw 3y ago
Well the U stands for universal. It is likely that taxes will fund it, so your taxes when working would probably offset it. That's my understanding.
- cbm-vic-20 3y ago
  That's where the Land Value Tax comes in... In my Georgist dreams, at least.
thanhhaimai 3y ago
The U in UBI stands for Universal. Everyone gets the exact flat amount, unconditional. That means there is much less administrative cost (don't need to verify that people belong to certain income brackets for example). Overall, the theory is that it would reduce government wasteful administrative process, while being more effective at lifting people out of poverty. The experiments so far are positive.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- SeanAnderson 3y ago
  Okay. So, in the case of America, it would either be relatively ineffective for those living in cities, or relatively enriching for those living in rural areas, yeah? It seems challenging to get everyone to agree on a fair number.
  - RA2lover 3y ago
    This also depends on population density, which is lower in rural areas.
- danenania 3y ago
  Another key aspect of it being universal is that it doesn't disincentive work and improving one's situation. This is a huge problem with unemployment and other means-tested welfare programs. People end up in situations where they're actually worse off if they get a job or make more money.
- MagicMoonlight 3y ago
  It can’t cost more to administer something than it does to give it to everyone. That’s just inherently a ridiculous claim. Should we give everyone hip replacements rather than bothering with appointments and need? Think of all the administration saved! Just book everyone in! Except now you’ve spent a trillion on hip replacements, the people who actually needed them are getting less support and on a huge list, and you’re just pointlessly operating on random people.
bee_rider 3y ago
UBI is universal, as others have said. There’s also the concept of “guaranteed minimum income,” which, I believe, just tops you up to the minimum income amount if you make less. In comparison, guaranteed minimum income seems much more difficult to administer (means testing and all that), and it seems like it would incentivize bad habits, in the sense that if you make less than the threshold, why not just quit your job?
- danbruc 3y ago
  A minimum income should probably not be a fixed amount, there should be a true minimum at zero other income and the payment should decrease with increasing income but at a slower rate than the income increase. I guess that is essentially what a negative income tax is.
  - xp84 3y ago
    And we already have that, the EITC.
- MagicMoonlight 3y ago
  If it’s given to everyone then you’re going to be subsidising the wealthy while cutting support for the poor. Supporters want it because they dream of playing xbox all day. If it’s given to everyone then taken away based on income, that’s just a stupider version of the current system. We already give people support based on need, so why would we get rid of that just to circle back? Just make the support better if the poor are struggling.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    I don’t think it is obvious that it will have to come at the cost of cutting support for the poor. At least, we’d save a bit by not having any administrative costs. It could also de-politicize this sort of support, and avoid embarrassing wastes of money, like the time Florida decided to spend more than they saved by drug testing welfare recipients. Projects that help everyone seem easier to sell politically.
  - 3y ago
marklubi 3y ago
They just want to give free money to people, and expect that it will work our for all involved.

Bjartr 3y ago

AIUI, if it's not something everyone gets (universal) and it's not the same amount for everyone (basic), it's not UBI.

SeanAnderson 3y ago
Thanks. The clarification that basic means same amount for everyone is helpful.

beardyw 3y ago

Well the U stands for universal. It is likely that taxes will fund it, so your taxes when working would probably offset it. That's my understanding.

cbm-vic-20 3y ago
That's where the Land Value Tax comes in... In my Georgist dreams, at least.

thanhhaimai 3y ago

The U in UBI stands for Universal. Everyone gets the exact flat amount, unconditional. That means there is much less administrative cost (don't need to verify that people belong to certain income brackets for example). Overall, the theory is that it would reduce government wasteful administrative process, while being more effective at lifting people out of poverty. The experiments so far are positive.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
SeanAnderson 3y ago
Okay. So, in the case of America, it would either be relatively ineffective for those living in cities, or relatively enriching for those living in rural areas, yeah? It seems challenging to get everyone to agree on a fair number.
- RA2lover 3y ago
  This also depends on population density, which is lower in rural areas.
danenania 3y ago
Another key aspect of it being universal is that it doesn't disincentive work and improving one's situation. This is a huge problem with unemployment and other means-tested welfare programs. People end up in situations where they're actually worse off if they get a job or make more money.
MagicMoonlight 3y ago
It can’t cost more to administer something than it does to give it to everyone. That’s just inherently a ridiculous claim. Should we give everyone hip replacements rather than bothering with appointments and need? Think of all the administration saved! Just book everyone in! Except now you’ve spent a trillion on hip replacements, the people who actually needed them are getting less support and on a huge list, and you’re just pointlessly operating on random people.

bee_rider 3y ago

UBI is universal, as others have said. There’s also the concept of “guaranteed minimum income,” which, I believe, just tops you up to the minimum income amount if you make less. In comparison, guaranteed minimum income seems much more difficult to administer (means testing and all that), and it seems like it would incentivize bad habits, in the sense that if you make less than the threshold, why not just quit your job?

danbruc 3y ago
A minimum income should probably not be a fixed amount, there should be a true minimum at zero other income and the payment should decrease with increasing income but at a slower rate than the income increase. I guess that is essentially what a negative income tax is.
- xp84 3y ago
  And we already have that, the EITC.
MagicMoonlight 3y ago
If it’s given to everyone then you’re going to be subsidising the wealthy while cutting support for the poor. Supporters want it because they dream of playing xbox all day. If it’s given to everyone then taken away based on income, that’s just a stupider version of the current system. We already give people support based on need, so why would we get rid of that just to circle back? Just make the support better if the poor are struggling.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  I don’t think it is obvious that it will have to come at the cost of cutting support for the poor. At least, we’d save a bit by not having any administrative costs. It could also de-politicize this sort of support, and avoid embarrassing wastes of money, like the time Florida decided to spend more than they saved by drug testing welfare recipients. Projects that help everyone seem easier to sell politically.
- 3y ago

marklubi 3y ago

They just want to give free money to people, and expect that it will work our for all involved.