Universal Basic Income

I like the idea of universal. It gets people off rock bottom and gives them the stability to deal with problems in a way that most of us take for granted. You have people at best who can almost make ends meet...if nothing goes wrong. Kid gets sick, dad has to stay home, loses his job. Can't pay his insurance because he doesn't have a job, loses his license because he doesn't have insurance. Drives anyway because he has to work and gets busted at a DUI checkpoint for not having a license. Goes to jail, can't make bail. Don't you love it when a plan comes together?

The people who are making it paycheck to paycheck with maybe a month's cushion. All of a sudden they don't have to work quite as much overtime. They can stay home a little more and strengthen the family unit. That's what conservatives think is all important, don't they?

People doing a little better might do something really profligate, like contribute to a college savings plan, so the kids don't come out of college buried in debt. Maybe buy a car that isn't breaking down all the time and let's them get to work reliably and gives them more job security.

People on the upper end of the scale, well for them, a couple of thousand isn't going to impact them one way or another.

But of course, if you believe (other) people are greedy, lazy bastards I guess none of those arguments hold water. Don't mistake me for a Pollyanna. There will be cheating and there will be abuses. Will they help more people with less waste, fraud and abuse? That's a fair question. Further study is required.

I guess my question is -- will it get people off of rock bottom and provide security for people who are currently living on the edge? Once we figure out what amount we can afford to spend on the program and divide it equally between everyone in the country, will the per-capita amount be enough to provide meaningful security to people with the lowest incomes and most challenging situations, especially if there is an inflationary effect?

If that can be guaranteed, then I don't mind the idea. But I keep thinking that we'll be wasting an awful lot of support on higher-income people who don't need it, and not providing as much help as we should for those who do.

Will it, for sure, absolutely for sure help everyone? I doubt it. Some people are so far gone nothing would help. Look how many lottery winners have ended up worse off than they were before they "won". As for the idea that money would be wasted going to people who don't need it: my concern with trying to determine that is that if you go down that road you have to set up rules and guidelines and then set up a bureaucracy to enforce them. My question is do you spend more money trying to keep money out of the hands of people who don't need it than you would spend just giving it to everyone? I also have a problem with the very idea of anyone trying to figure out at what level someone needs (deserves?) the money and who doesn't. It's not quite playing G-d, but it's a responsibility I wouldn't volunteer for. That's really the biggest failing of Obamacare. There's an arbitrary cutoff that leaves people who aren't rich, but make "too much" money holding the bag.

One of the interesting things about the Manitoba experimentt was that the benefits were reduced when extra money started coming in, but it wasn't one to one. The article said it was more like $5 less for every $10 earned, which meant there was an incentive to earn extra money.

Here's a wild idea...let people apply for it, no questions asked.

I think most people would be surprised just how similar daily living actually is for the vast majority of people.

I'm not aware of China having a UBI, though it does have a significant welfare system in place (including health insurance for the unemployed -not sure how that will work now that they've got a stated goal of UHC) and a national minimum wage.

seems to me those that don't need it wouldn't qualify for it in the first place.

we're talking about meaningful financial supports to those who actually do need them, rather than the sub sustenance ones that currently exist.

if you want to break a cycle of dependency, then maybe actually fixing it rather than slapping a bit of tape over it is the way to go?

Who decides?

marginal income tax rates?
I tend to see UBI as a negative income tax rather than a benefit.

But isn't part of the definition of a UBI that everybody qualifies for it?

UBI would actually reduce spending. Much like universal healthcare, a lot of administrative and bureaucratic redundancies would be eliminated.

Lets say $1000 is available for a welfare program per person. Which do you think is more efficient: giving the person $1000 directly to then spend in the economy, or spend $500 on overhead and give the person only $500?

You won't find examples of nations implementing any sort of economic policies, because nations are cultural units. You're think of states, which are political units.

That's kinda what I figured the "U" in UBI stands for!

To me it seems like conservative thinking would say the most efficient thing to do would be to just give the money. Of course, those calling themselves conservatives today are haunted by the possibility that someone who doesn't "deserve" the money would get it and besides anyone who's poor is poor because of their own bad choices, lack of morals whatever. We've seen that in Florida where the government spent far more to drug test welfare recipients than it saved by cutting off those who tested positive.

You've never worked for the government, have you?

modified by the "Basic", i'd say.
if you have more than basics, you don't require it.
We could go through the motions of giving it out, but then it'd jsut come back in income tax anyway...

forgive my being more concerned with efficacy of appearances.

"Basic" means "at the base". Or, the minimum.

"Universal Basic Income" would therefore be "the minimum (basic) income that everyone (universal) gets."

Teh Baba. Duh.

I have actually. All the more reason to pay directly to those it's intended for. Cut out the middlemen.

"Everyone"? Maybe you can clarify that. I'm sure you're not suggesting Jeff Bezos needs the extra pocket change.

It has nothing to do with who needs what. "Universal Basic Income" by definition would be income given to everyone. That's not my politics nor my definition, that's what it is.

I believe schemes that don't involve paying everyone indiscriminately are just called "Basic Income".

Deciding who "needs" it is a slippery slope. I'm not saying billionaires should get it, but there's a cost-benefit consideration here. Just like it cost more to drug test Florida welfare recipients than was saved, the cost of setting up the infrastructure to try to keep out "rich" people (however you define "rich") might be more costly than just handing out the money to everyone. My aversion to making moral judgements cuts both ways.

Okay, I didn't know that.

Another question that may need to be answered wrt UBI: Is it taxed?

The wealthy are already getting a handout in terms of the cap on FICA deductions.

I completely agree, but it's a separate issue.

Except that the drug testing scam involved new procedures and new costs, while the mechanism for seeing how much money people make exists and is already being used.

I think it'd be taxable, or at least add to taxable income amounts.
However, it would also define the basic personal amount and so wouldn't be taxed if that was the only reportable income.

I suppose it depends on the plan, but as I have understood at least some variations of it, no.

It is "universal" in that everyone is guaranteed to have that much. But if you already have it from other sources, then you get no extra from the government.

Of course, that would still leave the question of the person who has no income because he doesn't need any, being already independantly wealthy. But since those kinds of people aren't exactly numerous (most people with huge amounts of money have invested it, so they have plenty more coming in through interest and stocks and other things), that probably wouldn't make a huge difference to the system.

Without that cap, it would just be another transfer scheme. Without the cap, higher income earners and the wealthy would pay a lot more into it, but receive no additional benefit. That's not what Social Security is supposed to be about.

Then a "universal" basic income should not hand Jeff Bezos the same amount as you or me.

If it's universal, everyone gets it, although maybe one could voluntarily opt out.

I'm sure a lot of people at the Bezos level would gladly forego it. It'd hardly be a rounding error in his income.