5 ms·

> Can someone please poke holes in why this would be a bad idea? I think it's a great idea, but for the sake of argument: One of the more convincing arguments

> Can someone please poke holes in why this would be a bad idea? I think it's a great idea, but for the sake of argument: One of the more convincing arguments I've heard against a basic income system is that it would end up driving up housing costs: since everybody now has $N money for existing, rents would increase by almost $N. I would argue that such a unilateral increase belies the nature of a free market: if housing became overpriced, others would show up and undercut those who are asking too much. However, having recently relocated to the bay area, I'm less convinced that would necessarily be true... Some would say that a UBI is a "half measure", and that to really make it work you have to go all the way and provide free government-owned housing for anybody who wants it. But of course, that would come with its own host of problems... > Then, capitalism on top. Incentive to do well, and the freedom to experiment with stuff that may just crash-and-burn. And nobody is ever well-and-truly left behind. To me, this is the really big part of this that a lot of people against the idea of basic income miss: almost all of our current assistance programs phase themselves out as you make more money; they serve to discourage people from working. Providing the benefit to everybody makes the whole thing much more fair: if you want more money, go make more money, and you don't lose any of the money you're already getting.

tbrownaw 12y ago
if housing became overpriced, others would show up and undercut those who are asking too much. However, having recently relocated to the bay area, I'm less convinced that would necessarily be true... I keep hearing that the bay area is that way because of stupid zoning rules (artificially limited supply) that can't be fixed given screwed up local politics. Some would say that a UBI is a "half measure", and that to really make it work you have to go all the way and provide free government-owned housing for anybody who wants it. Nah, just make sure it's enough to cover minimal health insurance (and then stop using tax incentives to tie that to employment!!) and living within public-transit distance of an average middle-of-the-pack university. No sense in paying extra to some people just because they'd prefer to live in a place with bad zoning laws. To me, this is the really big part of this that a lot of people against the idea of basic income miss: almost all of our current assistance programs phase themselves out as you make more money; they serve to discourage people from working. Providing the benefit to everybody makes the whole thing much more fair: if you want more money, go make more money, and you don't lose any of the money you're already getting. Yep. Plus, appearance matters. (a) Your BI goes down by 1/3 the amount of your other income, and once it's gone income taxes kick in at 33% of whatever you make beyond 3x BI. (b) Your BI never goes away, but you're taxed 33% of income starting at dollar one. Somehow, (b) seems to sound better even tho they work out the same.

tbrownaw 12y ago

if housing became overpriced, others would show up and undercut those who are asking too much. However, having recently relocated to the bay area, I'm less convinced that would necessarily be true... I keep hearing that the bay area is that way because of stupid zoning rules (artificially limited supply) that can't be fixed given screwed up local politics. Some would say that a UBI is a "half measure", and that to really make it work you have to go all the way and provide free government-owned housing for anybody who wants it. Nah, just make sure it's enough to cover minimal health insurance (and then stop using tax incentives to tie that to employment!!) and living within public-transit distance of an average middle-of-the-pack university. No sense in paying extra to some people just because they'd prefer to live in a place with bad zoning laws. To me, this is the really big part of this that a lot of people against the idea of basic income miss: almost all of our current assistance programs phase themselves out as you make more money; they serve to discourage people from working. Providing the benefit to everybody makes the whole thing much more fair: if you want more money, go make more money, and you don't lose any of the money you're already getting. Yep. Plus, appearance matters. (a) Your BI goes down by 1/3 the amount of your other income, and once it's gone income taxes kick in at 33% of whatever you make beyond 3x BI. (b) Your BI never goes away, but you're taxed 33% of income starting at dollar one. Somehow, (b) seems to sound better even tho they work out the same.