[HN Gopher] UBI Would Likely Increase Poverty Rather Than Reduce...
___________________________________________________________________
UBI Would Likely Increase Poverty Rather Than Reduce It (2019)
Author : mooreds
Score : 44 points
Date : 2022-10-10 21:57 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cbpp.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cbpp.org)
| poopnugget wrote:
| pushedx wrote:
| UBI in any form increases inflation beyond any acceptable level.
| tomrod wrote:
| Note: that this think tank is considered non-political to left-
| leaning[0], and that it includes a critique of what is nominally
| a left-leaning policy, leads me to believe it is speaking out
| against its biases. This is a quality of integrity, IMO!
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_Budget_and_Policy_Pr...
| Bud wrote:
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| In Canada the government denied Employment Insurance to people
| that did not get vaxxed. And this is workers own money garnished
| and set aside for times when they are Unemployed.
|
| Don't get why anyone would want to become a slave to the state,
| and even more subject to political whims and ideological goals.
|
| I think it comes from the misplaced sense that if you have an
| office job your sentiments should run the world and myopic
| burocracy is why things work. Neglecting all the farmers, and
| actual people that do the hard work, entrepreneurs that build the
| wealth government skims off.
|
| I would be far more supportive of a government distribution of an
| allotment garden, and a right to build a small cottage on it. Far
| more liberting to the poor.
| exabrial wrote:
| Never let a UBI promoter escape the question of who is willingly
| paying for it.
|
| It's not to say we shouldn't help those in need.
|
| It's not to say as a society we're perfect right now.
|
| It's to say that all of the taxpayer funded UBI proposals are
| morally wrong, and don't work anyway. You can't legislate
| charity.
| vore wrote:
| Why are they "morally wrong"? Why can't we "legislate charity"?
| We already have means-tested taxpayer-funded programs that help
| the needy such as SNAP/TANF/EITC which fall under "legislated
| charity".
| exabrial wrote:
| Do you _really_ believe your tax funds are actually feeding
| people? They're being wasted and wrought with fraud, and
| believing anything else is a fantasy. There are poorly run
| charities that are far more efficient than those programs.
| vore wrote:
| Wasted how? Fraud how? Which charities are more efficient?
| You're pulling a massive "Source: Dude trust me" here.
| google234123 wrote:
| One example: high speed rail.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-
| speed-...
| crazygringo wrote:
| You can literally look up the numbers for budget allocated
| to SNAP and how much of it gets sent out via cards and how
| much of that gets spent at grocery stores. I'm not going to
| do it for you though since you can easily educate yourself,
| and you're the one initiating unsupported claims here.
|
| So... yes? I _really_ relieve my tax funds are actually
| feeding people. It's a fact. Unless you're a conspiracy
| theorist who thinks the government is lying about the
| numbers and it's actually a slush fund for the CIA or
| something, but in that case there's not much of a
| conversation to be had.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Citation incredibly needed. The standard view among policy
| wonks--backed by evidence--is that US social programs are
| _remarkably_ efficient with their spending.
| Timwi wrote:
| This is propaganda. I do not need to escape the question
| because the answer to it is obvious. UBI should be paid for by
| those people who, at the moment, pay for devastating wars and
| coups (e.g. Afghanistan), bailouts of banks and megacorps, and
| subsidies on destructive business models (fossil fuels, meat
| industry etc.). For some reason, these options are never on the
| table, not even on the supposed "left". Only taking money away
| from existing welfare seems to be ever considered. I wonder
| why.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _You can 't legislate charity._
|
| ...Except for all of the social programs that are literally
| just legislated charity?
|
| What do you think TANF (welfare) and SNAP (food stamps) and
| Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are...? Heck, what do
| you think schools and libraries are? Do you think those are all
| morally wrong as well?
|
| You might as well say you can't legislate a military, or that
| you can't legislate courts to enforce contracts...
| _-david-_ wrote:
| It seems to me that solution most likely to succeed would be a
| middle ground approach. A negative income tax. It isn't
| universal, but massively simplifies the welfare system.
|
| Basically you choose a dollar amount and a percentage. For
| simplicity I will choose $50,000 and 50%.
|
| - If you make $50,000 you don't owe taxes and you don't get
| welfare.
|
| - If you make over $50,000 you get taxed on any money you made
| over $50,000.
|
| - If you make under $50,000 then you do the following equation
| $50,000 - however much you earned and multiple it by the
| percentage. If you made $0 you would get $25,000 in welfare. If
| you made $20,000 you would get $15,000 in welfare.
|
| The way this is set up would prevent wealthy people from getting
| benefits, it ensures that if you make money that year you will
| make more than somebody who only gets welfare, and it massively
| simplifies the welfare system. It also allows you to play with
| the numbers easily to adjust for cost of living. If Area X is 10%
| more expensive than Area Y just change the dollar amount and/or
| the percentage.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Just as the various US fiscal packages over the past few years
| are about to do the same.
|
| I consider UBI already tried on a mass scale at this point.
| There's no intrinsic value to a dollar, handing them out en masse
| doesn't enrich people
| asdff wrote:
| What, the stimulus checks that amounted to less than an
| electric car rebate? Come on. Most people probably poofed that
| money away paying down credit card debt; average credit card
| holder in the U.S. carries like $6k in debt at any given time.
| jrnichols wrote:
| I'm inclined to agree, and the replies I see here are seeming
| to focus on the 2 stimulus checks. There were many months of
| extra unemployment benefits. People were in many cases making
| more on unemployment than they were their regular jobs.
|
| What we saw was rents going up first, real estate prices, and
| now inflation across the board.
|
| it was a whole lot more than the stimulus checks.
| rtp4me wrote:
| My anecdotal evidence: I needed to get a new AC unit for my
| house last year (summer 2021). I finally was able to get a
| reputable HVAC company to come and replace the unit. Talking
| with the owner, he told me (very frankly) he could not get
| reliable help anymore because the weekly govt checks were
| higher than he could could pay for a full-time HVAC person in
| our small community.
|
| And before anyone says, "he should pay them more"; no. If he
| payed more, he would have to take a paycut for himself
| because his prices would not be competitive. Especially in a
| rural community...
| remote_phone wrote:
| I was a huge proponent of Andrew Yang and UBI. I was skeptical
| but thought why not, let's try. I thought all it would do is
| create inflation but I was willing to try because the way
| things are going right now is clearly not working.
|
| After the pandemic distributing so much money to so many
| people, I think my initial thoughts were right. All we saw is
| inflation after 2 years of essentially UBI. I think it doesn't
| work and we need a better idea.
|
| That said, I still support Andrew Yang and the Forward Party.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > All we saw is inflation after 2 years of essentially UBI.
|
| Whatever happened during pandemic was nowhere near UBI. For
| one, it was not universal. Second, it was temporary and very
| volatile, not something one could plan around.
| mc32 wrote:
| And yet people didn't take advantage of it and instead quit
| and farted around with the money. Not everyone of course,
| for many people it was critical but also for many it was a
| reason to quit and fart around and not follow their hearts
| to art or hobbies or something else productive as some UBI
| proponents predicted very hopefully.
| lovich wrote:
| A benefit that had an anticipated end date of within a
| year is, as the previous poster stated, too volatile. It
| was treated as a temporary windfall instead of a new
| reality that could be relied on and planned around
| noahtallen wrote:
| How much money do you think people got? Most people got
| around $2k over a two years. How is $1k/yr enough to quit
| a job and "fart around" with the money?
| denkmoon wrote:
| >instead quit and farted around with the money.
|
| Citation needed. You read too much reddit.
| colonelxc wrote:
| There were record high # of businesses being created
| during the pandemic. There's anecdotes that it is because
| they had the opportunity to do so now with some extra
| cash + time off.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/19/business/startup-
| business...
| https://www.npr.org/2022/01/12/1072057249/new-business-
| appli...
|
| I had also seen some articles (citation needed!) that
| part of the employee crunch low-wage businesses are
| feeling is due to employees in those jobs taking their
| covid-money+time and training/interviewing/applying for
| office jobs.
|
| I don't think we have a measure on how many people got to
| pursue their hobbies (rather than 'farting around'),
| though I'm not sure it matters. UBI proponents don't
| think that all people will do something 'valuable'
| though, just that it will be a net positive.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Right, it was just the monitary handouts of a few thousands
| of dollars to individuals that caused this problem and not
| the near zero percent interest rates....
| Kye wrote:
| Covering a month or two of rent is not in any way UBI.
| Comevius wrote:
| I mean the distribution of that money was upward. It's not
| like the wages were fixed or anything, or housing or any of
| that.
|
| The United States shouldn't even start with an approach like
| UBI. Universal health coverage should be the first. It's one
| of the basic tenets of civilization, not to mention that it
| costs literally half.
| mc32 wrote:
| I concur with a basic level of universal health coverage,
| proactive basic coverage.
|
| I would not expand the definition of basic to cover any
| cosmetic and or elective procedures. And also not to
| introduce definition creep.
| lovich wrote:
| We'd have to allow for some definition creep, effectively
| freeze healthcare innovation, or let the basic level of
| healthcare fall to below basic after years of
| improvements and new drugs
| InitialLastName wrote:
| > All we saw is inflation after 2 years of essentially UBI
|
| I mean, it's difficult to prove the counterfactual, but we
| had a pretty substantial economic meltdown that could have
| had a far more drastic effect on poverty rates, and which we
| recovered from very quickly.
|
| One could argue that it caused inflation; one could also
| argue that the inflation we saw was the build-up of 15 years
| of monetary policy detonated by a crisis.
| tbalsam wrote:
| I really feel like there were excellent elements from the
| checks, and that a lot of the problems stemmed from rates
| being hard-locked at 0% greedily even as the market very
| obviously seemed to be headed towards a crash with how hot
| things were running.
|
| I kept looking for articles talking about the possibility of
| a crash, and it felt like the sentiment of the 2001 crash or
| so -- "it's not possible this time", "there's no way", etc.
| It felt like... insanity.
|
| I think that combined with other market issues added to
| inflation. I am not a financial expert, but I do like the
| idea of UBI for a few reasons (and hopefully it's sound in
| practice). Theoretically I believe it's like a resistor on
| the upper explosive growth of exponential mega-scale
| capitalism, which sort of needs that end of the scale and
| buffs the early game for most of us little one-or-twosie
| groups that aren't megascaled like that.
| Bud wrote:
| egypturnash wrote:
| I dunno what your expenses look like, but for most people,
| the couple thousand bucks of stimulus that the government
| reluctantly squeaked out, plus some half-assed extension of
| unemployment benefits, is a _hell_ of a long way from two
| years of UBI. Tons of the "paycheck protection plan" money
| went straight into the pockets of business owners rather than
| people who were barely scraping by even before the pandemic.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| Inflation is too much money for not enough goods. In a longer
| game, we should see production realign to produce enough
| goods and services for the people who need them.
|
| We currently have a system where most people have unmet needs
| sure to lack of funds to meet them, while massive quantities
| of cash chase around investment drama rather than producing
| passive change in people's lives. We need to realign
| production for people, and we ultimately do that by being
| willing to give people money. It worked in the fifties, after
| all...
| thrown_22 wrote:
| If you want to see the effects of UBI just write an extra zero
| on any note you see.
|
| We need government programs that targets peoples needs not
| their wants. Money is used to meet wants not needs.
|
| As a simple example a Stalinist food system in the US, with all
| the famines involved, would save lives for the first decade
| because people would start losing weight.
| another_story wrote:
| There's a big difference between redistributing a portion of
| money which falls inside the budget and "printing" trillions
| more that is added on as debt.
|
| Over the last few years we've also seen many people organize in
| their workplace and push for better working conditions. One
| could argue that wouldn't have been possible without the
| stimulus efforts.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Yes, now they make $15/hour and are poorer than ever with the
| longest decline in real wages on record
| asdff wrote:
| Where is $15/hr a living wage? A trailer park outside
| Toledo? Mass media perpetuated that narrative of $15/hr
| being enough, not any economists.
| lovich wrote:
| They were already poorer than their parents when it comes
| to basics like home ownership or being able to afford
| children when we did nothing. Is the correct approach just
| to accept serfdom?
| phpisthebest wrote:
| There is some flaws there. Covid spending was (and continues to
| be) completely corrupt and far from "universal"
|
| People that are making 6 figures are getting all kinds of free
| money, where people in the poverty range get squat...
|
| The difference? the 6 figure person has college loans, and
| children, the single person with no kids working at walmart
| gets nothing,
| [deleted]
| sn0w_crash wrote:
| We've already seen decades of welfare programs wreak havoc on low
| income communities.
| kevinob11 wrote:
| Were things better for low income communities before those
| attempts to help? I'm young, so honest question given minimal
| experience. Most of these programs seem to short-term help,
| with some minor annoying externalities and at worst flatish
| long-term results.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Well if you look at poverty graph there was HUGE reduction in
| poverty up until massive social programs which lock people
| into them
|
| The Welfare trap, going back decades shows that it is almost
| impossible to get out of it because the way benefits roll off
| you end up losing $1.5 in government "assistance" for every
| $1 you make in wages, so people can not escapse
|
| Plans like the Negative income tax would be far far more
| humane and actually help reduce poverty
| lovich wrote:
| When you say going decades back do you possibly mean back
| to the 80s when welfare queen became the boogeyman of the
| day and welfare projects were hobbled and slashed? Or do
| you mean back to the New Deal era where millions were
| brought of poverty with government work programs?
| pratheekrebala wrote:
| Which programs are you referring to?
| smeagull wrote:
| No we haven't.
| tbalsam wrote:
| Agreed with the US style of welfare, definitely, it's like a
| prison for many.
|
| I find myself supporting UBI more because it avoids a lot of
| those pitfalls (instead seemingly moving its weaknesses to some
| more obvious and awkward areas, a trade I definitely would take
| in the long run).
| legitster wrote:
| Pre-covid I had come around on UBI. But I have since soured on it
| again now that we had a reminder that inflation is real.
|
| In my mind, it doesn't seem like taxing the rich is a functional
| payment method for the same reason trickle-down economics don't
| work. Years of tax cuts did nothing to move the needle on
| consumer demands - if you give every millionaire $1000 they don't
| suddenly buy more milk.
|
| In comparison, when every American was written a big stimulus
| check, we _did_ see consumer prices respond across the board. By
| about as much as the entire cost of the stimulus! People did go
| out and buy more milk! I tend now to believe that consumer prices
| are set by the amount of cash the median American has.
|
| I am worried that something like a $1000 UBI would basically
| raise all consumer prices by $1000. _And we would still have to
| pay for it_.
|
| I would much rather return to a pursuit of a Negative Income Tax
| which has nearly all the same benefits but would be much cheaper
| and have fewer unintended repercussions.
| jackcosgrove wrote:
| The universality of UBI seems to be a carrot to sell the policy
| based upon the (flawed, as demonstrated in the article)
| assumption that universal benefits are politically safer.
|
| If your goal is to reduce inequality, means-tested programs are
| much more effective precisely because they don't cause demand-
| pull inflation. The recipients and amounts are few and small
| enough that supply flexibility is able to absorb the increased
| demand.
|
| If everyone gets a benefit it will cause inflation and then
| you're back where you started.
| keithnz wrote:
| UBI has to be done with a tax policy, basically, you give
| everyone $10k (as the article nominates as a figure), but you'd
| tax that back off a lot of people. Ideally you tax it back
| based on wealth rather than income.
| legitster wrote:
| I understand that. Again, this is seperate from the funding
| issue.
|
| You give everyone in America $10k dollars. At the end of the
| year you take that money back from 3/4 of them in taxes. But
| for 11/12 months, all that money is in grocery stores driving
| up prices.
|
| You could be in a situation where you increase the baseline
| cost of living $10k in America (very regressively) _and_
| increase the tax burden.
| Comevius wrote:
| According to the analysis it's because the conservatives would
| only support an approach to UBI that increases poverty, even
| though there are approaches that would decrease it, although
| culturally the United States is not fit for them.
|
| The conservative's version of UBI would eliminate all social
| programs, and end up redistributing income upward, increasing
| poverty and inequality.
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| UBI is great in spirit but easily exploited (as we see today).
| UBI relies on a "perfect market" with "perfect competition" to
| keep the costs of essential goods low like food or gas, etc. The
| reality is we do not have anywhere near "perfect competition",
| e.g. 1. OPEC just capped output to keep oil prices high; 2.
| prices at the grocery store are more attributable to corporate
| greed than increased costs.
|
| Instead of UBI, we are better off with policies that raise the
| safety nets higher from the floor and encourage innovation to
| make doing so cheap.
|
| - Single Payer Healthcare - which also includes preventative
| measures like nutrition. Cheap but healthy food like e.g.
| Potatoes, Rice, Beans, Lentils, Cheese, Pasta, etc should all be
| included in the Single Payer System. This also requires more
| Nurse Practitioners, and Physician's Assistants, Self-service
| appointments, Virtual care, etc to reduce costs.
|
| - Rezoning the entire US for at minimum 10 story buildings, with
| guaranteed 10% low income housing. Including mixed use zoning so
| Services (restaurants and shops) are colocated with Offices and
| Residential. Encouraging fewer cars or public transit needs, by
| having grocery stores, theaters, gyms, etc all in walking
| distance and at most two elevators away. Ideally also cheap
| public transit between these neighborhoods into city centers, and
| each other.
|
| - Incentivized higher-education programs - at public education
| centers - no government help for attending Harvard, or Stanford,
| etc. Government scholarships "full-rides" for in-demand
| industries like Plumbing, Electricians, Welding, 3D Printing,
| Software, Computer Chips, Robotics, Civil, Mechanical, Areospace,
| etc, etc. Including housing and entertainment stipends like in
| Germany, etc.
|
| - Safe injection sites, with colocated housing first sites, near
| but outside every major US city that provide safe, clean
| narcotics to addicts. Keeping them off the streets, and
| encouraging help programs, rehabilitation and eventually
| education programs to get back into society.
|
| - Creating/upgrading the infrastructure for energy abundance.
| Nuclear + Solar + Wind + Storage to meet 100x more energy than
| the country currently needs. Including investments into the Grid
| for local storage, generation, and incentives for smart usage
| that flattens peak distribution. Add regulation to cover all of
| the country's parking lots with Solar canopies and battery packs
| (where "the formula" showcases it is profitable over 30 years or
| a similarly long time horizon).
|
| This is what I'd prefer we push towards rather than UBI. In the
| meanwhile, I'll happily support UBI if thats the only thing
| getting traction (cuz at least its better than what we have
| today).
| sysread wrote:
| That's a misleading title. It's predicated on the assumption
| that, "conservative support for UBI rests on an approach that
| would increase poverty, rather than reduce it."
| allears wrote:
| I agree. He's setting up a classic straw man. "The only way we
| can afford UBI is by letting the conservatives gut other
| necessary social programs."
|
| That's not a flaw in UBI, that's just an assumption that the
| politics would work out poorly. UBI may be impossible in the
| current political climate, but that doesn't mean it's a bad
| idea, or that it could never work.
| efitz wrote:
| Every time UBI comes up on any discussion in libertarian-
| conservative circles I participate in, UBI always gets
| grudging hypothetical support conditional on replacing all
| other social spending with UBI.
|
| A lot of people see UBI as a small-government low-overhead
| libertarianish solution to current social programs, and the
| universality of it is seen as making it less
| unfair/redistributive.
|
| Anecdata is not data, but I don't think this is a straw man;
| you just need to talk to some conservatives.
|
| On the other hand, it's not fiscally manageable. It costs as
| much as we currently pay in taxes, and we still have to pay
| for defense and pork on top of it. So implementing UBI would
| exceed our income.
|
| This would require dramatically higher taxes which are
| politically unpalatable (such taxes would last no more than
| two years before any representatives who voted for it got
| voted out). The amount of money is not life changing for
| anyone other than the poorest. And it would cost way more
| than estimated due to fraud (see Medicare for an example).
| Plus why wouldn't businesses grab a share of it by jacking up
| prices on things that poor people can now afford? From the
| mindset that brings you slum lords.
|
| The market for US sovereign debt is drying up so we're not
| going to be able to overspend in the profligate way we have
| over the last few years.
|
| For these reasons UBI is a pipe dream.
| Kye wrote:
| This seems inevitable for a global political movement with a
| mission of discrediting government by kneecapping all its
| efforts.
| mrkstu wrote:
| The state of California providing the living counterpoint
| that the _other_ current alternative isn't effective in
| solving the issues plaguing society.
| bobkazamakis wrote:
| Nobody talks about California more than Texans.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >The state of California providing the living counterpoint
| that the other current alternative isn't effective in
| solving the issues plaguing society.
|
| Maybe it's just been a long day, but I don't get your point
| here.
|
| IIUC (I don't live in California, but I do live in the US),
| California has a thriving (5th largest in the world, IIRC,
| if they were separate from the US) economy based on
| capitalism and free (as in at least paying lip service to
| fairness) markets.
|
| And therein lies my confusion. Are you saying that "This
| seems inevitable for a global political movement with a
| mission of discrediting government by kneecapping all its
| efforts."[0] California is _not_ trying to discredit
| government and failing to do so?
|
| Also, are there really only _two_ options? Those being
| government control of _everything_ or anarcho-
| capitalism[1]? Not setting up a straw man here (or at least
| not trying to do so), I just don 't understand what you're
| _trying_ to say, and it 's an interesting topic I wouldn't
| mind discussing.
|
| I'm hope you see why I'm confused by your statement. If
| you'd elucidate, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33157027 (the
| comment to which you replied)
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| Some might say that a white paper with a title about how UBI
| would increase poverty where the key assumption is "if it's
| sabotaged" is also part of a mission of discrediting
| government by kneecapping its efforts.
| smeagull wrote:
| "America has such massive problems that most programs doomed to
| fail"
| phpisthebest wrote:
| The only way UBI would work is if the funding source was not
| Income tax based, and we massively reformed what the role of
| government is in everyone's life.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Sort of agree. The only way I see it being a good thing, is if
| automation truly takes over and puts _many_ people out of a job
| (like generations from now). Then taxing the use of certain
| automation based on the jobs they are replacing could work.
| Maybe.
|
| I'm sure government will only continue to increase its
| involvement in peoples lives.
| vlunkr wrote:
| I want to believe in UBI, but it seems like such a massive
| stretch and risk. IMO, our time would be better spent on
| targeting specific issues: healthcare, housing, food, education.
| We've made strides towards universal health care, but there are
| still issues. And now might be a good time for some housing
| reform given how bad the market is.
| jmpman wrote:
| I'm a fan of UBI, only if coupled with the elimination of minimum
| wage rules. If UBI was high enough, and only eligible to US
| citizens, then non-citizens would have significant difficulty
| competing against the US citizens willing to sell their labor at
| $2/hr.
|
| It effectively solves illegal immigration.
|
| But like any increase in minimum wage, all of it will be taken by
| the landlord class.
|
| I consider UBI to be the dream of unmotivated potheads
| everywhere. Sit around smoking weed, living out of a van, surfing
| every day.
|
| Make UBI high enough, and I might forgo my top 1% income to join
| them. Sounds like a good life. But then, who's going to do the
| real work?
| rlpb wrote:
| > A UBI that's financed primarily by tax increases would require
| the American people to accept a level of taxation that vastly
| exceeds anything in U.S. history. It's hard to imagine that such
| a UBI would advance very far, especially given the tax increases
| we'll already need for Social Security, Medicare, infrastructure,
| and other needs.
|
| The author's argument seems to revolve around the funding of UBI
| being unable to touch some categories of current spending ("as
| much as the entire federal budget outside Social Security,
| Medicare, defense, and interest payments"). But isn't UBI
| supposed to replace Social Security?
| bloggie wrote:
| I didn't read past the first argument because the author seems to
| completely misunderstand what UBI is. They plan to give everyone
| a fixed amount, where I am pretty sure UBI is only about
| replenishing income below a fixed amount. Am I wrong in this or
| this a very bad article?
| DigtalBits wrote:
| I think you're wrong about it. I've always thought UBI was pay
| everyone X per year (week/month/whatever), as it's simpler than
| trying to determine who is eligible.
|
| The way a party was trying to get it implemented in my country
| (NZ) was to remove progressive income tax and replace it all
| with a flat 33%. Combined with the UBI, anyone earning under
| ~$50k had a huge increase to their yearly income (ubi payment
| being way higher than the increased tax), and anyone earning
| over ~$110k had effectively no change in their income (increase
| in tax roughly equal to the UBI payment).
|
| That approach has the same benefit of replenishing low income
| and not high income, but without the hassle of figuring out who
| is low and who is high.
| vlunkr wrote:
| Another benefit of UBI over paying only those below the
| poverty line is that you aren't de-incentivized from trying
| to make more money at any point.
| summerlight wrote:
| This is a very hard problem to solve. The issue is not just the
| money and wealth itself but the power to control its flow. You
| can arbitrarily distribute the money but there are so many
| gatekeepers deep inside of the societal structure who're going to
| squeeze as much as possible from the policy _and_ they have
| enough power to do that. For instance, you give 1000 bucks to
| everyone? Then landlords will increase the rent by 800~900 bucks.
|
| While I still think that UBI can be quite a useful tool to solve
| poverty problems, this is not a silver bullet and has its own
| caveats. We still need to understand how those powers are working
| in practice and handle them one by one. Otherwise, this could be
| easily repurposed into a tool to reinforce the established power
| structure.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| This is why I favor a libertarian Marxist analysis of economic
| change over UBI strategies. What I mean by libertarian Marxism
| is essentially what Richard Wolff advocates - that instead of
| an economy comprised primarily of top-down managed firms, we
| transition to an economy of worker owned cooperatives (still
| within a free market). This moves real economic decision making
| power to a broad base of the population rather than in minority
| hands. This fulfills the goal of worker ownership of the means
| of production in a fully voluntary system.
|
| The problem with UBI is that economic decision making stays
| within the hands of a small minority, who then tilt the whole
| economy in their favor. This is why worker ownership of the
| means of production (or as I like to say, community ownership
| of the means of production) is so important. What's important
| to understand is that this is a mechanistic choice for how to
| run an economy. We can choose to do this voluntary because we
| recognize the value this arrangement offers to most people. It
| does not need to be done by force as attempted by autocrats in
| the 20th century. In any case, it requires less force than UBI!
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| It's almost like it wouldn't be feasible in isolation. One
| would first have to remove all the gatekeepers who control the
| absolute basic necessities like food, shelter and healthcare
| first. Otherwise the general population will just be extorted
| out of their basic income.
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| In some ways we already are and have been for a great long
| while. Starting with the industrial revolution.
| paxys wrote:
| In an ideal world low earners would spend UBI money and it
| would circulate in the local/state/national economy in the
| right proportions. In reality our capitalist system has near-
| perfected the art of _upward_ movement of money. We saw this
| happen during COVID, and there 's no reason large scale UBI
| would be any different.
| antihero wrote:
| History has had various methods of trying to curtail the
| unbelievable greed of landlords, how effective they are is
| subjective in many ways.
| carom wrote:
| >Then landlords will increase the rent by 800~900 bucks.
|
| Landlords don't set rents, they are price takers. Now if
| everyone gets more money and wants to live closer to work, then
| yes, prices will go up to meet increased demand.
| jriot wrote:
| For an example of why rent would go up you can look at rent
| near military bases and the BAH rates.
| jwarden wrote:
| Where do you get that number from?
| jrockway wrote:
| It's more complicated than this. There is rent control and
| rent stabilization, for example. I'm sure my landlord would
| LOVE to raise my rent to twice what I'm paying, but they're
| not legally allowed to. Yes it's weird and anti-free-market
| and unfair to people that didn't get in early and all that.
| But that's how it goes! UBI would not raise rent on rent
| stabilized apartments in NYC.
| reillyse wrote:
| This is not true. In a theoretical market it may be true but
| in a real world market it just is not. People don't make
| rational decisions. Prices don't reflect what "should"happen.
| Landlords increase rent because they can. No shade on
| landlords - because they are encouraged in the US to do so.
| But to pretend like this wont happen is naive.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| In major tech hubs, find the median salary of a single worker
| (eg seattle $100k). Divide by four ($25k), that's roughly the
| cost of a one bedroom apartment (~$2k/month). Adjust for
| neighborhood and amenities.
|
| They know their market. They know the max price they can set
| and fill easily.
|
| https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-
| media...
|
| https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-
| trends/seattle-...
| ISL wrote:
| I don't think people think about rental pricing from first
| principles. In general, they look around, see what everyone
| else is charging, maybe nudge it up a bit, and charge that.
| If they don't get any tenants, they lower the rate until
| someone leases the apartment.
| phpthrowaway99 wrote:
| If what people say is true and that there is a housing
| shortage, then yes, landlords will basically extract maximum
| available cash out of their local market.
| dataflow wrote:
| The article says " _conservative_ support for UBI rests on an
| approach that would increase poverty, rather than reduce it ",
| so maybe the problem is the conservative approach and not UBI?
| chatterhead wrote:
| I work part-time at a grocery store and government handouts are
| already running this country. Directly into the ground.
|
| 25% of the people that come through are < 40 and on food stamps.
| 40% are > 65 and on social security (disability/retirement)
|
| Less than half the people pay with actual money and I'd reckon
| only 70% of that is earned as much as inherited or provided by
| trusts.
|
| This isn't just about the people it's about the companies. The
| government is directly supporting companies that would otherwise
| be required to compete. Instead, all they have to do is be the
| cheapest - which is far easier when the government supports you.
|
| Direct government payments have already created an income
| disparity so I can totally believe UBI would make it worse.
|
| The only people who want UBI are those with money who don't have
| to give a shit and those without who want it for free.
| urmish wrote:
| We saw a glimpse of it in the recent history too. Inflation is
| something that can't be avoided if the distribution of wealth
| isn't backed by skilled labor.
| NemoNobody wrote:
| UBI would replace ALL other welfare type programs - Social
| Security would end, as would any and all other forms of
| government wealth redistribution outside of the UBI system.
| That's a ton money right there.
|
| Additionally, UBI is a basic human right - you get it for
| breathing, so it doesn't require oversight. Lots of money saved
| right there by simply scrapping the expenses from all the strings
| attached to government handouts.
|
| I really hope this article didn't change anyone's mind - it
| actually made laugh at it's sheer absurdity.
|
| I just want to reiterate - there will be no jobs in the soon
| coming future. None. It's seriously smarter to invest in being an
| Instagram influencer than it is to get a medical or law degree.
|
| Fight me all you want.
| theptip wrote:
| > If you take the dollars targeted on people in the bottom fifth
| or two-fifths of the population and convert them to universal
| payments to people all the way up the income scale, you're
| redistributing income upward.
|
| Not discussed is the old Milton Friedman policy of a negative
| income tax, which I think would play well with conservatives.
| This looks the same as a UBI for low-income, and you can make it
| phase out continuously so there are no cliffs providing
| disincentives to start work at the margins.
|
| Personally I think this is the most viable form of UBI in the US,
| since we already have the tax infrastructure to get the reporting
| on who earns what.
|
| (Bonus points for combining this program with automatic tax
| filing so normal employees don't need to send anything to the
| IRS, they just get the check/withholding appropriate to their
| earnings.)
| google234123 wrote:
| @dang, have you ever considered making a comment always equal an
| upvote? If a user finds a thread interesting enough to comment
| ...
|
| Just reacting to threads like this with a high comment to upvote
| ratio.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-10 23:01 UTC)