Article: Universal basic income costs far less than you think (qz)

[PDXTabs]

From qz: Universal basic income costs far less than you think.

[Prairie Stash]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-child-benefit-pbo-indexation-1.3895869

This is what universal income for children looks like in Canada. Although all children are guranteed income, few receive the maximum because of clawbacks. In the case of universal income, the clawbacks are called taxes.

"The government says the transfer provides the average family with an extra $2,300 a year per child, with a maximum of $6,400 per child under six going to families with net incomes of less than $30,000."

As your income goes up, you get less, kinda like taxes. Unlike taxes, its eventually phased out. Its an easy model to follow, rich people get less than poor people. Total cost is dramatically below population*benefit.

It circumvents the billionaire problem altogether. The previous incarnation of the program did the clawback through taxation, I think this is a bit more elegant.

[PDXTabs]

As your income goes up, you get less, kinda like taxes. Unlike taxes, its eventually phased out. Its an easy model to follow, rich people get less than poor people. Total cost is dramatically below population*benefit.

It circumvents the billionaire problem altogether. The previous incarnation of the program did the clawback through taxation, I think this is a bit more elegant.

But that's not universal and there is a different name for it: Negative Income Tax. It was championed by Richard Nixon. It might work, but it wouldn't be a UBI, because it wouldn't be universal.

Also, it has the problem that some politicians used to worry about that "programs for poor people are poor programs." That's why everyone gets Social Security.

[libertarian4321]

If we go to UBI, I'll just early retire as a multi-millionaire, get my "free UBI", get a 100% subsidy on Obamacare because I'm going to keep my money tied up in stocks (no income until I sell).

Why be a "maker," when you can be a "taker" instead?

[PDXTabs]

If we go to UBI, I'll just early retire as a multi-millionaire, get my "free UBI", get a 100% subsidy on Obamacare because I'm going to keep my money tied up in stocks (no income until I sell).

Why be a "maker," when you can be a "taker" instead?

Ignoring for a moment the huge amount of opportunity that a UBI would create for entrepreneurs to make things, how is living off of your equities investments in companies that you didn't build (and presumably didn't provide any of the pre-IPO capital) not taking? You are literally taking the profits of the company which you didn't build for products that you don't build. We've all decided that's just fine, just like we could for UBI.

The upside to the UBI is that you might not get stabbed to death for $40 once no one has a job.

[libertarian4321]

If we go to UBI, I'll just early retire as a multi-millionaire, get my "free UBI", get a 100% subsidy on Obamacare because I'm going to keep my money tied up in stocks (no income until I sell).

Why be a "maker," when you can be a "taker" instead?

Ignoring for a moment the huge amount of opportunity that a UBI would create for entrepreneurs to make things, how is living off of your equities investments in companies that you didn't build (and presumably didn't provide any of the pre-IPO capital) not taking? You are literally taking the profits of the company which you didn't build for products that you don't build. We've all decided that's just fine, just like we could for UBI.

The upside to the UBI is that you might not get stabbed to death for $40 once no one has a job.

I'm pretty sure I'm not at much risk of "being stabbed for $40" even without UBI.

Or maybe I'm just a wild man, willing to take that risk.

And any money I make from stocks is through a VOLUNTARY transaction between two consenting parties- no one is being forced, hence not "taking."

[PDXTabs]

And any money I make from stocks is through a VOLUNTARY transaction between two consenting parties- no one is being forced, hence not "taking."

Your mental model of the situation is so simplistic as to be patently wrong. Corporate profits do not exists in a vacuum, it isn't a two party transaction. Where did the company get all of the infrastructure to make and distribute the products (that sounds a little bit like taking to me)? Who raised and educated the workforce (is that more taking)? Who decided on the tax rate for the dividends? Who decided on the acceptable structure for the board? Who decided that you even had the right to invest in the company, that is, make it publicly traded?

We need an economic model where we can produce goods and (almost?) everyone gets to live indoors and eat food without widespread social unrest. Once the labor participation rate of high school educated men drops below 50% (which it will in my lifetime), I don't see how we aren't all screwed without some alternative to the current system. To put it another way, if you are afraid of taking, just wait and see how taking with pitchforks works.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Since we just topped $200,000 in investments, we now get $14,000/year in UBI. That's what everybody is talking about, right? They aren't just saying that they should be able to go for Starbucks coffee every morning, drinks at the bar three nights a week, dinner out twice a week, movies once a week, 300+ channels of cable TV, brand new car every three years, vacations twice a year, etc. and then get free money, right? Because that would be stupid.

[PDXTabs]

@WhiteTrashCash,

That's one of the things that I worry about. Once you explain to the voting public that we can afford a $1k/mo UBI for every citizen, how do you explain to them that it can't be $10k/mo?

[Prairie Stash]

As your income goes up, you get less, kinda like taxes. Unlike taxes, its eventually phased out. Its an easy model to follow, rich people get less than poor people. Total cost is dramatically below population*benefit.

It circumvents the billionaire problem altogether. The previous incarnation of the program did the clawback through taxation, I think this is a bit more elegant.

But that's not universal and there is a different name for it: Negative Income Tax. It was championed by Richard Nixon. It might work, but it wouldn't be a UBI, because it wouldn't be universal.

Also, it has the problem that some politicians used to worry about that "programs for poor people are poor programs." That's why everyone gets Social Security.

I was hoping you would see that the system was designed to provide a guarantee backstop income of $6400/person for only 36%. Its a universal backstop to decrease poverty with a focus on children. The  universality is access, not sending cash out the door.

How much would your version of UBI cost? the problem with most UBI articles is a reluctance to provide details and instead focus on generalities.

[PDXTabs]

I was hoping you would see that the system was designed to provide a guarantee backstop income of $6400/person for only 36%. Its a universal backstop to decrease poverty with a focus on children. The  universality is access, not sending cash out the door.

I principle I agree with you. But practically speaking, will people keep voting for it if it isn't truly universal? Would Canadians call their health care universal if high earners were no longer eligible? I'm not sure.

[Prairie Stash]

I was hoping you would see that the system was designed to provide a guarantee backstop income of $6400/person for only 36%. Its a universal backstop to decrease poverty with a focus on children. The  universality is access, not sending cash out the door.

I principle I agree with you. But practically speaking, will people keep voting for it if it isn't truly universal? Would Canadians call their health care universal if high earners were no longer eligible? I'm not sure.

They are eligible, everyone is. Access is universal. In the Bill gates scenario, if Bill Gates lost everything, he would get a check. Our health care is considered Universal but we still have high NW individuals going to other countries for treatment, people aren't forbidden from seeking alternate treatments. They remain eleigible, that doesn't mean they take part. Universal access has always been the goal, never universal usage.

Sure some people hate it, but for a democratic vote you don't need everyones love, just 51%. But again, in what way is access restricted? Even our Universal health care limits treatment to people who are sick, theres no need to treat people who are healthy. Sending a check to everyone is the same as sending healthy people for MRI scans, its pointless. However, if that healthy person ever fall on hard times, they get a scan, access is always there for everyone.

Unless the goal is to make every person feel like they're getting their "fare share". That's when you send a cheque to all. The previous program to the CCB did exactly that, every millionaire got the same check as everyone else, it was widely ridiculed but rich people got to feel better; until they did taxes and it was taken back. That then created animosity at tax time, people hate paying taxes more than anything else. The beauty of the current CCB is it skips sending people tax bills, making it very popular amongst everyone who hates taxes.