4 ms·

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 t

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.
- taffronaut 3y ago
  It's not inherently ridiculous. Administration is a non-zero cost. Anything below that cost is cheaper to give rather than administer. Hip operations are a weird counter example to refute UBI. They're obviously not universally applicable and are more expensive in cost and resources than the administration overhead. That's leaving aside the ethical issues of giving people unnecessary surgery.
- jiggawatts 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. Let's say there's three people, making $0, $10K, and $100K annually in pre-tax income. The first person has to stand in line to get welfare. The second person has to prove that they deserve the tiny amount of of welfare they may be entitled to, chewing up the time of government bureaucrats in the process. The third person has to pay income taxes, deal with refunds, tax write-offs, etc... All three people already involve the government, have to deal with paperwork, and this overall process generally costs non-zero money to implement. Let's say these people pay $0, $0, and $30K in taxes, for $0, $10K, and $70K net income. With UBI, the tax brackets are adjusted such that the person making $10K pays $5K in taxes, and the person making $100K pays $40K in taxes. These are just parameters (numbers) plugged into an existing mainframe. The government now has an additional $15K of tax revenue. Then everyone gets a "tax refund" of $5K, as-if they had a bunch of business expenses or whatever. Again, just a parameter in the tax dept mainframe! Now the net incomes are: $5K, $10K, and $65K. The beauty of this system is that no humans are involved. Nobody has to evaluate your assets, income, side-gigs, or whatever. Nobody has to care if you're "too rich" to get government assistance because everyone gets government assistance. It's cheaper because it's just numbers plugged into a mainframe that already processes everyone's tax every year! No additional expense is required: no new department, no new staff, no new offices. In fact, vast numbers of government drones can be made redundant, because... they're redundant now. Whatever they were getting paid before (a lot) can be added on top of the additional tax income. Billions, certainly, in most countries. Instead of pushing paper around, they can now join the commercial workforce and hopefully be productive members of society instead of telling disabled people that they don't deserve help because they have a valuable painting on their wall they inherited from their grandmother.

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.

taffronaut 3y ago
It's not inherently ridiculous. Administration is a non-zero cost. Anything below that cost is cheaper to give rather than administer. Hip operations are a weird counter example to refute UBI. They're obviously not universally applicable and are more expensive in cost and resources than the administration overhead. That's leaving aside the ethical issues of giving people unnecessary surgery.
jiggawatts 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. Let's say there's three people, making $0, $10K, and $100K annually in pre-tax income. The first person has to stand in line to get welfare. The second person has to prove that they deserve the tiny amount of of welfare they may be entitled to, chewing up the time of government bureaucrats in the process. The third person has to pay income taxes, deal with refunds, tax write-offs, etc... All three people already involve the government, have to deal with paperwork, and this overall process generally costs non-zero money to implement. Let's say these people pay $0, $0, and $30K in taxes, for $0, $10K, and $70K net income. With UBI, the tax brackets are adjusted such that the person making $10K pays $5K in taxes, and the person making $100K pays $40K in taxes. These are just parameters (numbers) plugged into an existing mainframe. The government now has an additional $15K of tax revenue. Then everyone gets a "tax refund" of $5K, as-if they had a bunch of business expenses or whatever. Again, just a parameter in the tax dept mainframe! Now the net incomes are: $5K, $10K, and $65K. The beauty of this system is that no humans are involved. Nobody has to evaluate your assets, income, side-gigs, or whatever. Nobody has to care if you're "too rich" to get government assistance because everyone gets government assistance. It's cheaper because it's just numbers plugged into a mainframe that already processes everyone's tax every year! No additional expense is required: no new department, no new staff, no new offices. In fact, vast numbers of government drones can be made redundant, because... they're redundant now. Whatever they were getting paid before (a lot) can be added on top of the additional tax income. Billions, certainly, in most countries. Instead of pushing paper around, they can now join the commercial workforce and hopefully be productive members of society instead of telling disabled people that they don't deserve help because they have a valuable painting on their wall they inherited from their grandmother.