3 ms·

If it’s funded by a flat tax, then yes, but then what’s the point? Seems like nothing more than a shell game. If it’s funded by a progressive tax, then how is

by zoky 2y ago

If it’s funded by a flat tax, then yes, but then what’s the point? Seems like nothing more than a shell game. If it’s funded by a progressive tax, then how is it anything more than a tax increase combined with increased welfare? Either way, seems like nothing but a recipe for inefficiency and increased government bureaucracy.

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
Current welfare frameworks generate massive amounts of extra work for both government and those receiving assistance. In the means-tested approach, the agencies administering welfare have to understand the means of the people receiving assistance. And monitor for changes that might push recipients outside the accepted range or cause a change to benefits. The recipients carry extra load because they need to understand where they themselves are in that accepted range and organize their lives around that. The current system creates perverse incentives where an unemployed person receiving assistance may find themselves worse off if they get a job. When the agency's job is "Send $X to every citizen" it's actually a lot simpler for everyone involved. There's no qualifications to verify, no changes to monitor. The recipients don't need to continually re-prove themselves or contort their lives. There's still some fraud potential but the attack surface is now far smaller. There's still complexity on the tax side because progressive taxation is the way to go to make this work, but we have that already. IMO it'd be a net reduction in complexity and administrative overhead vs the current welfare system.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  Sometimes, the means-testing apparatus itself costs more than the benefit that it is supposedly "protecting." Occasionally it costs multiples of the benefit.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
    Exactly! We're so concerned about someone getting something they don't "deserve" that we'll spend ourselves to death to prevent it.
rhelz 2y ago
These are good questions; I'll try to give you good answers. // If it’s funded by a flat tax, then yes, but then what’s the point? Seems like nothing more than a shell game. // yes. // If it’s funded by a progressive tax, then how is it anything more than a tax increase combined with increased welfare? // A couple of points: 1. We actually already have UBI and a single-payer health care system--you just have to be 63+ to get it :-) Social Security is the very paradigm of (as you put it), "A tax increase combined with increased welfare." And yet, everybody seems to love having it, or not having to pay for their parent's and grandparent's housing and medical bills. 2. If we had a UBI--say one that paid proportionally to our GDP--nobody would be fearing AI, robots doing the dirty work, etc etc. Every voter would be massively incentivized to vote for public policy which would have our GDP growing as fast as technological progress could let it. This alone, IMHO, is worth the price of admission. 3. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are a big fan of Hayak? :-) UBI is a cornerstone of Hayak's "road outta serfdom." Imagine driving an Amazon truck--and being told when you can and when you can't go to the bathroom. You probably don't have to imagine your employer putting key-and-mouse monitoring systems on your computer. If somebody can tell you not to go to the bathroom when you need to, and if somebody can punish you for not pounding your keyboard fast enough, lets face it, you don't have any freedom. UBI would give us the leverage we need to exercise our inalienable right to freedom even at our workplaces. // Either way, seems like nothing but a recipe for inefficiency and increased government bureaucracy. // As others have noted, it is quite the opposite. Think about how MANY different ways the government subsidizes things...sugar prices, corn prices, beef prices are all artificially high because farmers get subsidies. And we're just getting started--oil companies getting subsidies, subsidized student loans---and there are *square miles* of buildings staffed with people to administer them all. Literally (not metaphorically, or hyperbolicly) literally *square miles* of bureaucracy would no longer be needed. And if we had UBU--it would be OK to lay them off!

by zoky 2y ago

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago

Current welfare frameworks generate massive amounts of extra work for both government and those receiving assistance. In the means-tested approach, the agencies administering welfare have to understand the means of the people receiving assistance. And monitor for changes that might push recipients outside the accepted range or cause a change to benefits. The recipients carry extra load because they need to understand where they themselves are in that accepted range and organize their lives around that. The current system creates perverse incentives where an unemployed person receiving assistance may find themselves worse off if they get a job. When the agency's job is "Send $X to every citizen" it's actually a lot simpler for everyone involved. There's no qualifications to verify, no changes to monitor. The recipients don't need to continually re-prove themselves or contort their lives. There's still some fraud potential but the attack surface is now far smaller. There's still complexity on the tax side because progressive taxation is the way to go to make this work, but we have that already. IMO it'd be a net reduction in complexity and administrative overhead vs the current welfare system.

ryandrake 2y ago
Sometimes, the means-testing apparatus itself costs more than the benefit that it is supposedly "protecting." Occasionally it costs multiples of the benefit.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  Exactly! We're so concerned about someone getting something they don't "deserve" that we'll spend ourselves to death to prevent it.

rhelz 2y ago

These are good questions; I'll try to give you good answers. // If it’s funded by a flat tax, then yes, but then what’s the point? Seems like nothing more than a shell game. // yes. // If it’s funded by a progressive tax, then how is it anything more than a tax increase combined with increased welfare? // A couple of points: 1. We actually already have UBI and a single-payer health care system--you just have to be 63+ to get it :-) Social Security is the very paradigm of (as you put it), "A tax increase combined with increased welfare." And yet, everybody seems to love having it, or not having to pay for their parent's and grandparent's housing and medical bills. 2. If we had a UBI--say one that paid proportionally to our GDP--nobody would be fearing AI, robots doing the dirty work, etc etc. Every voter would be massively incentivized to vote for public policy which would have our GDP growing as fast as technological progress could let it. This alone, IMHO, is worth the price of admission. 3. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are a big fan of Hayak? :-) UBI is a cornerstone of Hayak's "road outta serfdom." Imagine driving an Amazon truck--and being told when you can and when you can't go to the bathroom. You probably don't have to imagine your employer putting key-and-mouse monitoring systems on your computer. If somebody can tell you not to go to the bathroom when you need to, and if somebody can punish you for not pounding your keyboard fast enough, lets face it, you don't have any freedom. UBI would give us the leverage we need to exercise our inalienable right to freedom even at our workplaces. // Either way, seems like nothing but a recipe for inefficiency and increased government bureaucracy. // As others have noted, it is quite the opposite. Think about how MANY different ways the government subsidizes things...sugar prices, corn prices, beef prices are all artificially high because farmers get subsidies. And we're just getting started--oil companies getting subsidies, subsidized student loans---and there are *square miles* of buildings staffed with people to administer them all. Literally (not metaphorically, or hyperbolicly) literally *square miles* of bureaucracy would no longer be needed. And if we had UBU--it would be OK to lay them off!