3 ms·

If you don't like how the government subsidized certain markets today, I'm not quite sure why a good solution would be to subsidize the entire economy. Such a

If you don't like how the government subsidized certain markets today, I'm not quite sure why a good solution would be to subsidize the entire economy. Such a program is way too complex to model out and reliably predict what the impact will be. We simply don't know how much UBI is the "right" amount for specific outcomes, and we definitely don't know what the impact will be on any subset of the economy. According to the OP author, we can't even test UBI programs before a full rollout. If we can't reliably model or predict the outcome, and we can test it, how are we supposed to actually implement it?

Retric 2y ago
Subsidizing the economy is a meaningless idea, it reallocates resources. As to being impossible to model, there’s a great number of countries in the world eventually one will likely try the experiment on its entire economy without impacting 99.9% of the global population. That said, you can turn individual safety nets into UBI lockstep with changing the tax code and see what happens. The fear is people would spend ‘food’ money on drugs, or people in subsidized housing would move, or all the things which created these programs instead of handing out cash. That’s a political question not an economic one, are we trying to act as a parent or do we want people to have freedom to make their own choices.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Literally any economic decision is reallocated resources, that term is much too broad to be meaningful. Are you arguing that a UBI is wealth redistribution specifically? Someone will try it, totally agree there. I don't see any problem with that either, countries should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I wouldn't tell France they shouldn't try it, but I am absolutely saying I don't want to try it here in the US.
  - Retric 2y ago
    > Are you arguing that a UBI is wealth redistribution specifically? I’m saying social safety nets are already wealth redistribution. Changing the form of that safety net to UBI is an allocation of resources based on individual decisions and thus free markets where Food Stamps/Housing Subsidies/etc is allocating money based on bureaucratic decisions. Basically nothing says UBI needs to cost more than existing social safety nets.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      If the current spending on safety nets is spread evenly over the whole society, won't the current recipients not have enough to live?
      - Retric 2y ago
        Only if you ignore the tax code. US example for single people: SNAP for a single person is $291/month - total income * 0.3 so they get nothing at 11,640 per year of annual income and 291$/month at 0$ annual income. 2024 income brackets for single people are: 10% $0 to $11,600, 12% $11,600 to $47,150, 22% $47,151 to $100,525, ... Maximum tax bracket is 37%. Hand everyone 260$ per month, but change things so the highest tax bracket 37% applies $0 to $11,600 and everyone making 12,000+$/ year sees zero change in their take home pay. And people making 0$/year get 260$/month. Those numbers aren’t quite identical, but it’s surprising how close it ends up. At 30%, $0 to $11,640 it’s off by less than 1$/year.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        Not quite sure that I follow here. In your model, what are the proposed benefits given out as a UBI? Is it $260/mo reducing down to $0 when you make at least $12,000 per year? If so, how is that universal? Or a basic income covering some of the basic resources UBI is argued to cover, like shelter or food?
        Retric 2y ago
        My example was for a US UBI that only covered food and the math was limited to single people, but the points could be applied more broadly. UBI means everyone has an income of at least x$/year. If you’re making more than x$/year in take home pay that’s an income > x$/year. Behind the scenes the advantage of the government handing out money every month is redundancy. Even if that same amount is normally removed from a paycheck, people aren’t suddenly left with 0$ if their paycheck bounces etc. Thus a single deposit of $10,000 per month is slightly worse than a deposit of $10,000 - $x and an independent deposit of $x.

Retric 2y ago

Subsidizing the economy is a meaningless idea, it reallocates resources. As to being impossible to model, there’s a great number of countries in the world eventually one will likely try the experiment on its entire economy without impacting 99.9% of the global population. That said, you can turn individual safety nets into UBI lockstep with changing the tax code and see what happens. The fear is people would spend ‘food’ money on drugs, or people in subsidized housing would move, or all the things which created these programs instead of handing out cash. That’s a political question not an economic one, are we trying to act as a parent or do we want people to have freedom to make their own choices.

_heimdall 2y ago
Literally any economic decision is reallocated resources, that term is much too broad to be meaningful. Are you arguing that a UBI is wealth redistribution specifically? Someone will try it, totally agree there. I don't see any problem with that either, countries should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I wouldn't tell France they shouldn't try it, but I am absolutely saying I don't want to try it here in the US.
- Retric 2y ago
  > Are you arguing that a UBI is wealth redistribution specifically? I’m saying social safety nets are already wealth redistribution. Changing the form of that safety net to UBI is an allocation of resources based on individual decisions and thus free markets where Food Stamps/Housing Subsidies/etc is allocating money based on bureaucratic decisions. Basically nothing says UBI needs to cost more than existing social safety nets.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    If the current spending on safety nets is spread evenly over the whole society, won't the current recipients not have enough to live?
    - Retric 2y ago
      Only if you ignore the tax code. US example for single people: SNAP for a single person is $291/month - total income * 0.3 so they get nothing at 11,640 per year of annual income and 291$/month at 0$ annual income. 2024 income brackets for single people are: 10% $0 to $11,600, 12% $11,600 to $47,150, 22% $47,151 to $100,525, ... Maximum tax bracket is 37%. Hand everyone 260$ per month, but change things so the highest tax bracket 37% applies $0 to $11,600 and everyone making 12,000+$/ year sees zero change in their take home pay. And people making 0$/year get 260$/month. Those numbers aren’t quite identical, but it’s surprising how close it ends up. At 30%, $0 to $11,640 it’s off by less than 1$/year.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Not quite sure that I follow here. In your model, what are the proposed benefits given out as a UBI? Is it $260/mo reducing down to $0 when you make at least $12,000 per year? If so, how is that universal? Or a basic income covering some of the basic resources UBI is argued to cover, like shelter or food?
        Retric 2y ago
        My example was for a US UBI that only covered food and the math was limited to single people, but the points could be applied more broadly. UBI means everyone has an income of at least x$/year. If you’re making more than x$/year in take home pay that’s an income > x$/year. Behind the scenes the advantage of the government handing out money every month is redundancy. Even if that same amount is normally removed from a paycheck, people aren’t suddenly left with 0$ if their paycheck bounces etc. Thus a single deposit of $10,000 per month is slightly worse than a deposit of $10,000 - $x and an independent deposit of $x.