Do mustachians support universal basic income?

[Boofinator]

If your choice was binary, current system vs. UBI, what would be your arguments specifically against UBI?

The current system is set up so that people who cannot physically work (old or infirm) have a basic income for subsidence. UBI would expand those benefits to people who can, theoretically, work.

The free market system has evolved from primitive economies to one where value is exchanged in direct proportion to the value that is provided to each party (theoretically, of course), with money being the fungible medium of exchange. This is, in my opinion, a desirable state of nature. Any alternatives should serve to rectify the inherent disadvantages of this system.

One disadvantage of the free market is that there isn't a government-sponsored "safety net". Over the years, various safety nets have been proposed, some of which have been implemented. What these safety nets generally have had in common are that they are to support people who cannot physically support themselves due to disability or old age. UBI takes away those contingent requirements.

Here are my arguments against UBI:

The most common refrain I hear from the proponents of UBI is that the economy is changing to the degree that even able-bodied people are having trouble finding work, and thus being able to provide enough value to society to justify the value associated with basic subsistence. I personally don't buy this argument for a variety of reasons (this would require a post in its own right).

A second argument from UBI enthusiasts is that people could be creating great things if they didn't have to spend their time groveling for jobs (which the current welfare system requires). I don't disagree that there might be some people like this out there, but I would argue they are so few and far between as to be immaterial to the argument.

Third, I don't think the second-order effects can be fully understood until after such a plan was implemented. I believe these effects would be a lot more negative effects than some of the positive first-order effects that are predicted. Since the philosophy of MMM is predicated on knowing the value of things like time, money, survival needs, etc., a further removal from the connection of these things to the work put in to achieve them is one of those undesirable second-order effects.

[EscapedApe]

I must not have seen your reply.

Let's split this up so it does not become a double-barrelled question:

Are you saying that you are against all forms of welfare?

Helping people is a noble cause, one that I am completely on-board with.

I am saying that I am against all forms of compulsory taxation that have welfare as a justification.

Notice that I am choosing my words advisedly. Tax money ostensibly collected for the purpose of public assistance is not always used to that end - and even when it is, it isn't always done successfully.

Are you opposed to paying for the basic necessities for those who cannot provide for themselves?

I have no problem with charities or not-for-profit organizations whose goal is to provide financial assistance. I have personally donated to many causes over the course of my life, even when my own money situation was difficult.

The principle difference is that donating to a charity or non-profit is voluntary.

If your choice was binary, current system vs. UBI, what would be your arguments specifically against UBI?

No justification is required to be skeptical. Skepticism is the default position in science, until evidence is provided indicating that a hypothesis has truth value to it. I have not been presented with evidence that UBI has been applied more successfully in the past when compared to non-compulsory welfare provisioning, so I remain skeptical.

That being said, I can play along for the sake of discussion.

One can point to numerous instances in history where government has interfered with the price of goods or labour, or provided subsidies and assistance, with the stated goal of improving the lives of people, but with the actual result of creating shortages, surpluses, cartels, and all the way up to economic disasters and famines. There is evidence and reason enough to be reluctant to try for another centrally-planned solution when so many have failed catastrophically in the past.

Better, I think, that we do nothing as opposed to doing active harm.

But isn't it cold to simply do nothing? Callous? Aren't we ignoring the plight of fellow human beings?

When people are suffering and in distress, there is a powerful compulsion to do something. Sometimes, this desire to feel useful in combating the tragedy of the universe's indifference to us can lead us to make poorly thought-out decisions for the sake of conscience. We end up causing harm in our attempts to propitiate our consciences, and we rationalize the harm done by our misguided efforts by invoking our good initial intentions.

I prefer, instead, to believe in human ingenuity, charity, willpower. I prefer to believe in people's ability to adapt and become stronger in the face of hardship. And above all, I believe in people's freedom from compulsion by outside forces.

Until evidence emerges, preferably historical examples, of UBI being applied both beneficially and with no equal-or-greater negative side effects, we must be skeptical of it, however much it may appeal to our sensibilities as charitable people.

[EvenSteven]

Again, no, it isn't a price floor. Recall that a price floor is an externally imposed minimum price that can be paid for a product, good, commodity, or service. This means that minimum wage is a price floor (the government sets a minimum price that can be paid for labor). However, UBI fails this definition since you are receiving it without exchanging any products, goods, commodities, or services. Furthermore, under UBI minimum wage could either drastically reduced. In fact some economists are actually arguing that UBI would be a wage subsidy under that scenario which would allow the marketplace to better set price for labor.

UBI meets your definition of a price floor.

If you are enacting UBI (the receipt of money without exchanging any products, goods, commodities, or services in return), you are externally imposing a price floor for doing nothing.

The non-imposed normal market payout for doing nothing is $0.

Edit: I understand that UBI does not meet the strict definition of a price floor - it's closer to a subsidy. I see this as a semantic matter.

Money is supposed to be an abstract representation of concrete value created via work. I have a problem with money being paid when no work has been done to justify it. That is what UBI is, and I have not seen compelling evidence that justifies its implementation.

I found some very compelling evidence for the implementation of money being paid when no work has been done to justify it:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1037/0002-9432.72.2.182

There is a wealth of similar and related studies.

[Boofinator]

I found some very compelling evidence for the implementation of money being paid when no work has been done to justify it:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1037/0002-9432.72.2.182

There is a wealth of similar and related studies.

From the abstract (the rest is behind a paywall): "Three policy implications are discussed: (a) increasing access to federal food programs, (b) promoting breastfeeding, and (c) working toward reducing child poverty."

I can get onboard with (a) and (b). As for (c), it could improve child nutrition, but not in the absence of improved knowledge of nutrition and responsible spending by the parents. In other words, what percentage of the supplemental income would actually be spent on nutrition? Meanwhile, the U.S. government has these programs in place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service#Nutrition_assistance_programs.

Very tangentially related: I find the poverty line to be an interesting statistic if MMM in his early blogging/retirement days could be counted under that statistic, as seems likely from this information: https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html and https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-poverty-thresholds/thresh11.xls. (Especially when one considers that capital gains are not factored into the equation.)

[Wrenchturner]

I think we should move to a four day work week first.  Make Fridays Great Again.  It wouldn't reduce productivity that much, it would help people in their personal/social lives, and some people would probably start volunteering or otherwise working for free, a la UBI.

I'd like to see a more consensual post-scarcity model, if possible.

Lack of consent(taxes -> welfare) require means testing so people don't get angry.

Consensual donations don't require that as much.

Just a thought.

[EvenSteven]

I found some very compelling evidence for the implementation of money being paid when no work has been done to justify it:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1037/0002-9432.72.2.182

There is a wealth of similar and related studies.

From the abstract (the rest is behind a paywall): "Three policy implications are discussed: (a) increasing access to federal food programs, (b) promoting breastfeeding, and (c) working toward reducing child poverty."

I can get onboard with (a) and (b). As for (c), it could improve child nutrition, but not in the absence of improved knowledge of nutrition and responsible spending by the parents. In other words, what percentage of the supplemental income would actually be spent on nutrition? Meanwhile, the U.S. government has these programs in place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service#Nutrition_assistance_programs.

Very tangentially related: I find the poverty line to be an interesting statistic if MMM in his early blogging/retirement days could be counted under that statistic, as seems likely from this information: https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html and https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-poverty-thresholds/thresh11.xls. (Especially when one considers that capital gains are not factored into the equation.)

The bolded part sounds suspiciously like people getting stuff without the work to justify it.

[Bloop Bloop]

A second argument from UBI enthusiasts is that people could be creating great things if they didn't have to spend their time groveling for jobs (which the current welfare system requires). I don't disagree that there might be some people like this out there, but I would argue they are so few and far between as to be immaterial to the argument.

Yes. I don't think we are all just artistic/musical/computer prodigies waiting to be unleashed, if only we didn't have to punch on at McDonald's every morning.

I have no great issue with the idea of having a universal safety net, but to give it unconditionally (i.e. to able-bodied people, for doing nothing) troubles me, for reasons I've discussed in other threads. If nothing else, it would make low-level goods and services significantly more expensive, since there would no longer be any market for menial jobs, or it would be distorted in any case beyond recognition if a liveable wage was payable for literally zero effort.

[Davnasty]

...snip...

Until evidence emerges, preferably historical examples, of UBI being applied both beneficially and with no equal-or-greater negative side effects, we must be skeptical of it, however much it may appeal to our sensibilities as charitable people.

I think you've made incorrect assumptions about my position. I'm highly skeptical of UBI but I'm also open minded and interested in solid arguments for and against. If you're looking for historical evidence of a successful UBI I don't know what to tell you.

Where I've said "welfare" in previous posts I meant to say "government provided welfare" (also, assistance would have been a better word than welfare). From your response it sounds like you are in fact against that.

But my last and most relevant question was what arguments do you have specifically against UBI? I understand what you're saying when you state that skepticism is the default position and that you don't need to make arguments against UBI until someone else makes a proper argument in favor of UBI, but regardless, you have in fact made arguments against UBI. I've pointed out that all of those arguments can apply at least as well to current forms of government assistance. What I'm looking for is arguments that apply specifically to UBI.

If you don't have any and all of your arguments are against any form of government assistance, there's nothing wrong with that, but it would benefit the discussion if that was made clear.

[Alternatepriorities]

After reading through many of the comments on this thread I listened to a 2 hour interview with Yang. He makes the best argument for the need to do something before the next technological revolution I've heard. If someone is going to convince me UBI is a good idea it will probably be him. I might be biased by the MATH hat though...

Still, I have to wonder why we as a society shouldn't pay people to actually make the world we live in nicer instead. Why hand out free money to able bodied people when there is still trash along our roadways, graffiti on the walls, dilapidated buildings in many towns, and 100% of our waste isn't recycled. Not to mention all the bike paths and hiking trails that could be built. Maybe the robots will do all of those jobs eventually, but until then I think I'd rather spend a trillion a year something like the CCC instead of a UBI.

[Boofinator]

I found some very compelling evidence for the implementation of money being paid when no work has been done to justify it:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1037/0002-9432.72.2.182

There is a wealth of similar and related studies.

From the abstract (the rest is behind a paywall): "Three policy implications are discussed: (a) increasing access to federal food programs, (b) promoting breastfeeding, and (c) working toward reducing child poverty."

I can get onboard with (a) and (b). As for (c), it could improve child nutrition, but not in the absence of improved knowledge of nutrition and responsible spending by the parents. In other words, what percentage of the supplemental income would actually be spent on nutrition? Meanwhile, the U.S. government has these programs in place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service#Nutrition_assistance_programs.

Very tangentially related: I find the poverty line to be an interesting statistic if MMM in his early blogging/retirement days could be counted under that statistic, as seems likely from this information: https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html and https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-poverty-thresholds/thresh11.xls. (Especially when one considers that capital gains are not factored into the equation.)

The bolded part sounds suspiciously like people getting stuff without the work to justify it.

Yes, the stuff that directly addresses the need. Money indirectly addresses the need, and I'd argue substituting an equivalent amount of UBI money (or even double the money) for these nutrition programs would not improve the nutrition of the poor.

[Wrenchturner]

After reading through many of the comments on this thread I listened to a 2 hour interview with Yang. He makes the best argument for the need to do something before the next technological revolution I've heard. If someone is going to convince me UBI is a good idea it will probably be him. I might be biased by the MATH hat though...

Still, I have to wonder why we as a society shouldn't pay people to actually make the world we live in nicer instead. Why hand out free money to able bodied people when there is still trash along our roadways, graffiti on the walls, dilapidated buildings in many towns, and 100% of our waste isn't recycled. Not to mention all the bike paths and hiking trails that could be built. Maybe the robots will do all of those jobs eventually, but until then I think I'd rather spend a trillion a year something like the CCC instead of a UBI.

Because people need incentives to do unpleasant tasks.  See: highly paid plumbers.
People don't just go out of their way to do unpleasant work.
See: company lunchrooms (communism)

[Boofinator]

Still, I have to wonder why we as a society shouldn't pay people to actually make the world we live in nicer instead. Why hand out free money to able bodied people when there is still trash along our roadways, graffiti on the walls, dilapidated buildings in many towns, and 100% of our waste isn't recycled. Not to mention all the bike paths and hiking trails that could be built. Maybe the robots will do all of those jobs eventually, but until then I think I'd rather spend a trillion a year something like the CCC instead of a UBI.

Well put. And 100% agree that if unemployment actually became a huge issue, that a government work program would be a significantly better solution than UBI.

[Boofinator]

After reading through many of the comments on this thread I listened to a 2 hour interview with Yang. He makes the best argument for the need to do something before the next technological revolution I've heard. If someone is going to convince me UBI is a good idea it will probably be him. I might be biased by the MATH hat though...

Still, I have to wonder why we as a society shouldn't pay people to actually make the world we live in nicer instead. Why hand out free money to able bodied people when there is still trash along our roadways, graffiti on the walls, dilapidated buildings in many towns, and 100% of our waste isn't recycled. Not to mention all the bike paths and hiking trails that could be built. Maybe the robots will do all of those jobs eventually, but until then I think I'd rather spend a trillion a year something like the CCC instead of a UBI.

Because people need incentives to do unpleasant tasks.  See: highly paid plumbers.
People don't just go out of their way to do unpleasant work.
See: company lunchrooms (communism)

Perhaps I misunderstand your message, but the primary incentive would be to earn money to purchase food and other necessities. The same reason most of us work jobs.

[EscapedApe]

If you don't have any and all of your arguments are against any form of government assistance, there's nothing wrong with that, but it would benefit the discussion if that was made clear.

Yes. I am against any and all forms of tax-payer-funded assistance: UBI, subsidies to farmers, welfare, social security, etc. The same basic arguments apply to all of them.

[EvenSteven]

I found some very compelling evidence for the implementation of money being paid when no work has been done to justify it:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1037/0002-9432.72.2.182

There is a wealth of similar and related studies.

From the abstract (the rest is behind a paywall): "Three policy implications are discussed: (a) increasing access to federal food programs, (b) promoting breastfeeding, and (c) working toward reducing child poverty."

I can get onboard with (a) and (b). As for (c), it could improve child nutrition, but not in the absence of improved knowledge of nutrition and responsible spending by the parents. In other words, what percentage of the supplemental income would actually be spent on nutrition? Meanwhile, the U.S. government has these programs in place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service#Nutrition_assistance_programs.

Very tangentially related: I find the poverty line to be an interesting statistic if MMM in his early blogging/retirement days could be counted under that statistic, as seems likely from this information: https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html and https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-poverty-thresholds/thresh11.xls. (Especially when one considers that capital gains are not factored into the equation.)

The bolded part sounds suspiciously like people getting stuff without the work to justify it.

Yes, the stuff that directly addresses the need. Money indirectly addresses the need, and I'd argue substituting an equivalent amount of UBI money (or even double the money) for these nutrition programs would not improve the nutrition of the poor.

Quite possibly. But my point remains. There is good evidence that providing unearned welfare does indeed have evidence to support it being a good idea.

[Boofinator]

If you don't have any and all of your arguments are against any form of government assistance, there's nothing wrong with that, but it would benefit the discussion if that was made clear.

Yes. I am against any and all forms of tax-payer-funded assistance: UBI, subsidies to farmers, welfare, social security, etc. The same basic arguments apply to all of them.

This is a slippery slope. Would you be ok with people literally dying in the streets because they could not afford food? You seem to assume that private charity would eliminate this possibility, but then if this were the case we wouldn't see so many advertisements for charities showing starving people, would we?

[EscapedApe]

If you don't have any and all of your arguments are against any form of government assistance, there's nothing wrong with that, but it would benefit the discussion if that was made clear.

Yes. I am against any and all forms of tax-payer-funded assistance: UBI, subsidies to farmers, welfare, social security, etc. The same basic arguments apply to all of them.

This is a slippery slope. Would you be ok with people literally dying in the streets because they could not afford food?

People are already dying in the streets because they cannot afford food or shelter, despite the availability of social programs. Have a look a New York City. The city has thousands of rent-controlled derelict properties currently in state repossession, and dozens of homeless dying every winter like clockwork. Social programs haven't fixed that problem.

Now, one might say "Well, just add more social programs to cover the rest. Problem solved." But you still haven't justified the assumption that social programs do a better job of feeding/sheltering people than people could just by working hard without interference.

You cannot assume the conclusion you are trying to prove.

You seem to assume that private charity would eliminate this possibility, but then if this were the case we wouldn't see so many advertisements for charities showing starving people, would we?

I didn't say that charities are the solution to hunger.

I said voluntary charitable donations are a preferable strategy to state-mandated tax-payer-funded assistance programs.

Governments are inefficient because of their inherent constraints and their perverse incentives (here, a "perverse incentive" means that a politician profits personally by taking actions that are against the interests of the people she is supposed to represent).

Government inefficiency is the principal argument against any kind of state-administered program.

[BTDretire]

If you don't have any and all of your arguments are against any form of government assistance, there's nothing wrong with that, but it would benefit the discussion if that was made clear.

Yes. I am against any and all forms of tax-payer-funded assistance: UBI, subsidies to farmers, welfare, social security, etc. The same basic arguments apply to all of them.

Re: social security, I'll admit many people get back more than they paid in and maybe even more than if the money had been invested well. But, if your going to be against it as "tax-payer-funded assistance", please send me a check for all the FICA I paid in over the last 50 years, also, I'd like to get a decent growth rate on the money that was taken from me.

[BTDretire]

Are we giving this $1,000 a month to everyone and continuing the same amount of payments from all the other welfare programs?
 Is the $1,000 per person in the household?
 Is there an age limit?
I suggest there should be, otherwise, get your childs birth paid for by hardworking taxpayers then get $12,000 a year for the next 18 years. Do that 5 or 6 times and you could have a nice standard of living and still not take care of the kids.
 And, are all the mustachians sitting on their $1M+ collecting their Obamacare going to get  another $12,000 a year from hardworking taxpayers.
 Note" US population 329.8M, US workers 131.7M, Percent of workers that actually pay Federal income Taxes, 51%. 131.7/329.8=40%. That means that only 20% of the US population are hardworking taxpayers supporting the system. We might want to think seriously about how hard we squeeze them.
  I personally don't like taxing corporations, but, that is the only way we get some money out of those that don't pay Federal income taxes.

[Davnasty]

Are we giving this $1,000 a month to everyone and continuing the same amount of payments from all the other welfare programs?
 Is the $1,000 per person in the household?
 Is there an age limit?
I suggest there should be, otherwise, get your childs birth paid for by hardworking taxpayers then get $12,000 a year for the next 18 years. Do that 5 or 6 times and you could have a nice standard of living and still not take care of the kids.
 And, are all the mustachians sitting on their $1M+ collecting their Obamacare going to get  another $12,000 a year from hardworking taxpayers.
 Note" US population 329.8M, US workers 131.7M, Percent of workers that actually pay Federal income Taxes, 51%. 131.7/329.8=40%. That means that only 20% of the US population are hardworking taxpayers supporting the system. We might want to think seriously about how hard we squeeze them.
  I personally don't like taxing corporations, but, that is the only way we get some money out of those that don't pay Federal income taxes.

The title of the thread asks about support for UBI, which leaves the answers to some of your questions open ended but in the OP they specifically refer to Andrew Yang's proposal. If you're asking about the Freedom Dividend specifically, answers can be found here.

https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/

To get you started:
- some assistance programs would remain and others would be eliminated. For example Social Security Disability Insurance would stack with UBI but SNAP benefits would end.
- 18+ year olds would receive UBI
- yes, everyone would receive UBI regardless of their other sources of income

[Wrenchturner]

After reading through many of the comments on this thread I listened to a 2 hour interview with Yang. He makes the best argument for the need to do something before the next technological revolution I've heard. If someone is going to convince me UBI is a good idea it will probably be him. I might be biased by the MATH hat though...

Still, I have to wonder why we as a society shouldn't pay people to actually make the world we live in nicer instead. Why hand out free money to able bodied people when there is still trash along our roadways, graffiti on the walls, dilapidated buildings in many towns, and 100% of our waste isn't recycled. Not to mention all the bike paths and hiking trails that could be built. Maybe the robots will do all of those jobs eventually, but until then I think I'd rather spend a trillion a year something like the CCC instead of a UBI.

Because people need incentives to do unpleasant tasks.  See: highly paid plumbers.
People don't just go out of their way to do unpleasant work.
See: company lunchrooms (communism)

Perhaps I misunderstand your message, but the primary incentive would be to earn money to purchase food and other necessities. The same reason most of us work jobs.

Yes, you're correct, I misread that paragraph.

[EscapedApe]

Re: social security, I'll admit many people get back more than they paid in and maybe even more than if the money had been invested well.

Indeed. That's how pyramid schemes are supposed to work.

But, if your going to be against it as "tax-payer-funded assistance", please send me a check for all the FICA I paid in over the last 50 years, also, I'd like to get a decent growth rate on the money that was taken from me.

Good luck getting that money out of the particular politician who squandered it.

That's the other problem with sweeping programs like social security or UBI. Once they are put into law, it's very difficult to repeal them, even after you have come to realize they were a bad idea.

[nancyfrank232]

- 18+ year olds would receive UBI
- yes, everyone would receive UBI regardless of their other sources of income

Yes please! I’ll take it

[Boofinator]

If you don't have any and all of your arguments are against any form of government assistance, there's nothing wrong with that, but it would benefit the discussion if that was made clear.

Yes. I am against any and all forms of tax-payer-funded assistance: UBI, subsidies to farmers, welfare, social security, etc. The same basic arguments apply to all of them.

This is a slippery slope. Would you be ok with people literally dying in the streets because they could not afford food?

People are already dying in the streets because they cannot afford food or shelter, despite the availability of social programs. Have a look a New York City. The city has thousands of rent-controlled derelict properties currently in state repossession, and dozens of homeless dying every winter like clockwork. Social programs haven't fixed that problem.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. Above is the passage that I disagree with.

Yes, people are dying. But social programs aren't intended to save everyone ("No Child Left Behind" excepted...). Social programs are intended to save the people who want saving. So the drug addicts who are more interested in their next fix than an actual plan to save themselves, are not going to be helped by most social programs. But the family living paycheck to paycheck that loses their primary income source, they need the assistance until they can get back on their feet.

In addition, there are many social programs that I feel were generally ill-conceived, though of course they come from good intentions. I feel rent-control is one of those. It distorts the housing market significantly enough that people use where they live as a proxy for economic gain (because it is much cheaper than other locations), and therefore it reduces the options of finding better living locations that reflect their true needs.

[EscapedApe]

But social programs aren't intended to save everyone ("No Child Left Behind" excepted...). Social programs are intended to save the people who want saving.

This is really the core of what I've been getting at. Intention.

It doesn't matter what a program is intended to do. It only matters what it actually does.

On the whole, social programs suck. They're mismanaged, their funding is misappropriated, and their ultimate outcomes are a distortion of their stated goals.

If our aim is to promote the greatest social good, then (idiosyncratically) the best course of action is to do nothing and let people's ingenuity, determination, and hard work solve their own problems without forcibly siphoning the ingenuity, determination, hard work of other people.

[Davnasty]

But social programs aren't intended to save everyone ("No Child Left Behind" excepted...). Social programs are intended to save the people who want saving.

This is really the core of what I've been getting at. Intention.

It doesn't matter what a program is intended to do. It only matters what it actually does.

On the whole, social programs suck. They're mismanaged, their funding is misappropriated, and their ultimate outcomes are a distortion of their stated goals.

If our aim is to promote the greatest social good, then (idiosyncratically) the best course of action is to do nothing and let people's ingenuity, determination, and hard work solve their own problems without forcibly siphoning the ingenuity, determination, hard work of other people.

You claimed that government aid doesn't save everyone. Boofinator pointed out that saving everyone isn't the intent. You took one word from that post and changed the subject. This no longer feels like a sincere discussion.

As for the bolded, you've made it pretty clear that this is your opinion but you haven't provided any evidence for why this is true.

[Bucksandreds]

I cant argue that a UBI is absolutely a perfect thing that needs to be enacted instantly. But logically, giving EVERYONE $12,000 per year on top of their income reduces income inequality. A person making minimum wage now makes nearly double off UBI plus work and I would make like 8% more. No way prices would raise drastically (logically there would be some inflation) because most people make more than minimum wage and so their income would not go up anywhere close to double. Again, I cant say that this is the perfect solution. The people on here who vehemently disagree with it ARE giving illogical reasons why it wouldn't work. If you're idealogically opposed to $ for nothing then fine. Please stop posting B.S. about how this wouldn't improve income inequality and how prices would just go up $12,000 per person. Small inflation associated with UBI, combined with a VAT WOULD absolutely hurt HIGH spenders (people who spend 6 figures plus per year) and financially benefit all others. There is no logical argument about that.

[Bucksandreds]

Percent of workers that actually pay Federal income Taxes, 51%. 131.7/329.8=40%. That means that only 20% of the US population are hardworking taxpayers supporting the system. We might want to think seriously about how hard we squeeze them.
 

That is such a intellectually dishonest argument that I'm not sure any further retort is warranted.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/misconceptions-and-realities-about-who-pays-taxes

[Boofinator]

But social programs aren't intended to save everyone ("No Child Left Behind" excepted...). Social programs are intended to save the people who want saving.

It doesn't matter what a program is intended to do. It only matters what it actually does.

On the whole, social programs suck. They're mismanaged, their funding is misappropriated, and their ultimate outcomes are a distortion of their stated goals.

If our aim is to promote the greatest social good, then (idiosyncratically) the best course of action is to do nothing and let people's ingenuity, determination, and hard work solve their own problems without forcibly siphoning the ingenuity, determination, hard work of other people.

I don't disagree with your first two paragraphs. Outcomes are what matter, and in general bureaucratic programs suck in generating positive outcomes for the money spent.

Your third paragraph is where I disagree. The same argument can really be used for any government expenditure. Military? Nah, we don't need them, the second amendment and a citizen militia could defend us and save some 3% of GDP. CDC? Nope, human immune systems have been evolving for millions of years to fight these diseases. Etc., etc.

As for social programs specifically, 1) Who cares if they are an inefficient use of resources in the short term if they accomplish a stronger long-term society? and 2) Government is simply a civil compact between the people, for the people; instituting social programs that require a tax on the people is simply an agreement that individual people are too selfish by themselves (not in a bad way, just in a self-interested way) to accomplish this objective, but government has the power to tax and distribute the money if it accomplishes a greater good. So the government is forcing the people to pay taxes, but at the same time it is the social contract of the people with the government that gives the government the authority to tax.

The actual "good" that any social programs accomplish is difficult to quantify. I prefer to consider whether I would benefit from the program if I was in dire straights, while not putting too large of a burden on the greater society. if the answer is yes, then I consider that specific social program a morally good program. (I feel UBI fails this test in that it does put a large burden on greater society, in not expecting people to have to provide value to society to receive income.)

[Bloop Bloop]

Small inflation associated with UBI, combined with a VAT WOULD absolutely hurt HIGH spenders (people who spend 6 figures plus per year) and financially benefit all others. There is no logical argument about that.

If you're earning $200,000 previously and min wage is $25,000, and now with the passage of the UBI you're earning $212,000 (we will put aside the fact that you probably have to pay more tax to make it work) and min wage + UBI is $37,000, your spending power has just gone from 8x min wage to 5.7x min wage. This doesn't account for tax, but the point is obvious: you suddenly have less spending power, and this affects all transactions you make other than perhaps luxury goods/services which were not market-priced anyway. So now you want a cheap take-out meal, or an Uber, or someone to mow your lawns, or someone to babysit, or any other basic good/service: suddenly your relative purchasing power has shrunk by a third relative to what you previously had.

[Telecaster]

If you're earning $200,000 previously and min wage is $25,000, and now with the passage of the UBI you're earning $212,000 (we will put aside the fact that you probably have to pay more tax to make it work) and min wage + UBI is $37,000, your spending power has just gone from 8x min wage to 5.7x min wage. This doesn't account for tax, but the point is obvious: you suddenly have less spending power, and this affects all transactions you make other than perhaps luxury goods/services which were not market-priced anyway. So now you want a cheap take-out meal, or an Uber, or someone to mow your lawns, or someone to babysit, or any other basic good/service: suddenly your relative purchasing power has shrunk by a third relative to what you previously had.

Uh no.  Your spending ability went from $200K/year to $212K/year.  That is NOT a decrease.

The above sentence says nothing regarding the notion that UBI is a good idea or not, but your purchasing ability would not decrease by a third.  Come on! 

[Bloop Bloop]

If you're earning $200,000 previously and min wage is $25,000, and now with the passage of the UBI you're earning $212,000 (we will put aside the fact that you probably have to pay more tax to make it work) and min wage + UBI is $37,000, your spending power has just gone from 8x min wage to 5.7x min wage. This doesn't account for tax, but the point is obvious: you suddenly have less spending power, and this affects all transactions you make other than perhaps luxury goods/services which were not market-priced anyway. So now you want a cheap take-out meal, or an Uber, or someone to mow your lawns, or someone to babysit, or any other basic good/service: suddenly your relative purchasing power has shrunk by a third relative to what you previously had.

Uh no.  Your spending ability went from $200K/year to $212K/year.  That is NOT a decrease.

The above sentence says nothing regarding the notion that UBI is a good idea or not, but your purchasing ability would not decrease by a third.  Come on!

I'm not sure if you're wilfully ignoring my argument, or just incapable of understanding the term "relative".

[Davnasty]

If you're earning $200,000 previously and min wage is $25,000, and now with the passage of the UBI you're earning $212,000 (we will put aside the fact that you probably have to pay more tax to make it work) and min wage + UBI is $37,000, your spending power has just gone from 8x min wage to 5.7x min wage. This doesn't account for tax, but the point is obvious: you suddenly have less spending power, and this affects all transactions you make other than perhaps luxury goods/services which were not market-priced anyway. So now you want a cheap take-out meal, or an Uber, or someone to mow your lawns, or someone to babysit, or any other basic good/service: suddenly your relative purchasing power has shrunk by a third relative to what you previously had.

Uh no.  Your spending ability went from $200K/year to $212K/year.  That is NOT a decrease.

The above sentence says nothing regarding the notion that UBI is a good idea or not, but your purchasing ability would not decrease by a third.  Come on!

I'm not sure if you're wilfully ignoring my argument, or just incapable of understanding the term "relative".

It's difficult to refute your argument because the logic is so twisted. If I had to pick just one flaw it would be that your explanation assumes market prices are set exclusively by the price that minimum wage earners can afford.

[Bloop Bloop]

No, it doesn't assume market prices are set "exclusively" in that manner, but it assumes that that is a significant contributor.

For example, people drive Uber now because it's an alternative to minimum wage which pays a little more than minimum wage. If you no longer needed that money to survive (because of UBI), then Uber's prices would have to go up. I'm sure you agree with that.

So suddenly a whole bunch of goods and services see their price increasing. Which means that for everyone their spending power decreases.

Now if your total income goes from a $25k min wage to $37k min wage + UBI (i.e. increases 50%), then you have more absolute spending power as long as prices don't increase 50%. Meanwhile, if your total income goes from $200k to $212k (increase of 6%), then you have less spending power if prices rise by more than 6%. This doesn't even account for the likelihood that taxes will increase from UBI.

Now you might say that if someone on $212k only spends $40k a year, then as long as the "new" spending doesn't exceed $52k (i.e. a 30% increase), he or she is still better off. But this neglects the fact that the remaining non-spent portion of wages now has less investment power than before, because of general inflation.

But, it's a logical fallacy to say that my explanation "assumes market prices are set exclusively by the price that minimum wage earners can afford." If I was saying that, then I'd be saying that the UBI would increase all prices by 50%. I'm not saying the price increase will be anything like that. However, I suspect the average rate of inflation would be significant. And yes, for things like Uber, I think the increase would be close to 50%.

[kite]

I cant argue that a UBI is absolutely a perfect thing that needs to be enacted instantly. But logically, giving EVERYONE $12,000 per year on top of their income reduces income inequality. A person making minimum wage now makes nearly double off UBI plus work and I would make like 8% more. No way prices would raise drastically (logically there would be some inflation) because most people make more than minimum wage and so their income would not go up anywhere close to double. Again, I cant say that this is the perfect solution. The people on here who vehemently disagree with it ARE giving illogical reasons why it wouldn't work. If you're idealogically opposed to $ for nothing then fine. Please stop posting B.S. about how this wouldn't improve income inequality and how prices would just go up $12,000 per person. Small inflation associated with UBI, combined with a VAT WOULD absolutely hurt HIGH spenders (people who spend 6 figures plus per year) and financially benefit all others. There is no logical argument about that.

When 'everyone' qualifies for a subsidy, the prices do rise.  That's exactly what happened to college tuition. 
Inequality would still exist and become even more extreme.  Because 'everyone' is not actually everyone.  There is going to be zero support for a UBI entitlement to be extended to immigrants.  None.  And yet they are a large part of the poorest of the poor in our communities.  Among our immigrant populations, about 12 million or so are undocumented.  Those are the very poor, often scraping by without access welfare or SSI, without access to banking on whom prices will have gone up by 12,000 per year (or whatever the mythic number) at the same time that the champions of UBI believe that we no longer have need of foodbanks, shelters or charity medical care because 'everyone' just got a raise. 

We already have the EITC, which is a marvelous method of boosting the income of the working poor in an unrestricted manner.  As a bonus, it gives more to those with dependents.  Other need-based aid options offer incentives to producers and parts of the supply chain.  ie... Housing subsidies ensure housing availability & standards, Ag Subsidies (that's what SNAP is) ensure that farmers grow food and stores that serve the poor stock things besides liquor.  WIC checks are the reason that specific nutritious foods & baby formula is available in poor neighborhoods instead of something like the paint thinner that has been passed off in other countries. 
My opposition to UBI is about more than an ideological opposition to handouts.   I believe that aid should be means tested because some people need more than others and they always will.  It is immoral for those of us who don't need anything to give ourselves a boost that ultimately takes away from those who are in need.  And to do this systemically and fund it with a regressive tax as we seek to close the programs that were devised in response to need is cruel.     
I have a few loved ones scraping by below poverty levels.  And if you took away their subsidized apartment, their welfare & their food stamps, they would starve or die of exposure.  You see, they aren't poor because the economy is tough or because of technology.  They are poor because they aren't equipped to manage the activities of daily living.  They need food & shelter provided by someone else.  All their available cash gets frittered away in a manic cycle of their bipolar illness or on a daily basis on lottery tickets or on booze & eating at the diner.   My uncle is a nice guy.  He drops $20/daily at the diner.  Which accounts for most of his $800/month check.  The rest of it goes for gas & car insurance.  He's always going to need his free housing.  Always. 
My beef with every UBI proposal I've read (including Yang's) is that they are touted as a solution to poverty when they are nothing of the sort.  You should spend a heck of alot more time with actual poor people before concluding that what they need is $1000/month in cash.  For most of them, it will never be enough.  And the consequences of eliminating all the other patchwork of services is a catastrophe.   

[HPstache]

If a recent high school grad got married straight out of school , could that couple FIRE in a LCOL with the $24,000/yr UBI payment while never working a day in their lives?  Seems quite plausible, and I'm not sure it feels "right"... though who am I to say what "right" is?

[Wrenchturner]

The comment on immigrants is interesting to me, mostly because it points out a practical issue: how do we track who has already received UBI?  People will require bank accounts?  That means they need photo id and probably a mailing address.   Otherwise, how would fraud be prevented?

[LoanShark]

I cant argue that a UBI is absolutely a perfect thing that needs to be enacted instantly. But logically, giving EVERYONE $12,000 per year on top of their income reduces income inequality. A person making minimum wage now makes nearly double off UBI plus work and I would make like 8% more. No way prices would raise drastically (logically there would be some inflation) because most people make more than minimum wage and so their income would not go up anywhere close to double. Again, I cant say that this is the perfect solution. The people on here who vehemently disagree with it ARE giving illogical reasons why it wouldn't work. If you're idealogically opposed to $ for nothing then fine. Please stop posting B.S. about how this wouldn't improve income inequality and how prices would just go up $12,000 per person. Small inflation associated with UBI, combined with a VAT WOULD absolutely hurt HIGH spenders (people who spend 6 figures plus per year) and financially benefit all others. There is no logical argument about that.

When 'everyone' qualifies for a subsidy, the prices do rise.  That's exactly what happened to college tuition. 
Inequality would still exist and become even more extreme.  Because 'everyone' is not actually everyone.  There is going to be zero support for a UBI entitlement to be extended to immigrants.  None.  And yet they are a large part of the poorest of the poor in our communities.  Among our immigrant populations, about 12 million or so are undocumented.  Those are the very poor, often scraping by without access welfare or SSI, without access to banking on whom prices will have gone up by 12,000 per year (or whatever the mythic number) at the same time that the champions of UBI believe that we no longer have need of foodbanks, shelters or charity medical care because 'everyone' just got a raise. 

We already have the EITC, which is a marvelous method of boosting the income of the working poor in an unrestricted manner.  As a bonus, it gives more to those with dependents.  Other need-based aid options offer incentives to producers and parts of the supply chain.  ie... Housing subsidies ensure housing availability & standards, Ag Subsidies (that's what SNAP is) ensure that farmers grow food and stores that serve the poor stock things besides liquor.  WIC checks are the reason that specific nutritious foods & baby formula is available in poor neighborhoods instead of something like the paint thinner that has been passed off in other countries. 
My opposition to UBI is about more than an ideological opposition to handouts.   I believe that aid should be means tested because some people need more than others and they always will.  It is immoral for those of us who don't need anything to give ourselves a boost that ultimately takes away from those who are in need.  And to do this systemically and fund it with a regressive tax as we seek to close the programs that were devised in response to need is cruel.     
I have a few loved ones scraping by below poverty levels.  And if you took away their subsidized apartment, their welfare & their food stamps, they would starve or die of exposure.  You see, they aren't poor because the economy is tough or because of technology.  They are poor because they aren't equipped to manage the activities of daily living.  They need food & shelter provided by someone else.  All their available cash gets frittered away in a manic cycle of their bipolar illness or on a daily basis on lottery tickets or on booze & eating at the diner.   My uncle is a nice guy.  He drops $20/daily at the diner.  Which accounts for most of his $800/month check.  The rest of it goes for gas & car insurance.  He's always going to need his free housing.  Always. 
My beef with every UBI proposal I've read (including Yang's) is that they are touted as a solution to poverty when they are nothing of the sort.  You should spend a heck of alot more time with actual poor people before concluding that what they need is $1000/month in cash.  For most of them, it will never be enough.  And the consequences of eliminating all the other patchwork of services is a catastrophe.

Or, perhaps, “if we took away their subsidies”...they would figure out they need to provide for themselves?

Why should we pay for your uncle’s $20/day diner habit? Why is that our responsibility?

[nancyfrank232]

Uh no.  Your spending ability went from $200K/year to $212K/year.  That is NOT a decrease.

The above sentence says nothing regarding the notion that UBI is a good idea or not, but your purchasing ability would not decrease by a third.  Come on!

I’m not intelligent enough to comment about the societal benefit of UBI, but what I can comment on is what would happen to me if UBI is implemented for all 18+ year olds irrespective of other sources of income

From what I’ve read, most low income people spend their UBI on groceries and other necessities

https://futurism.com/basic-income-money-spent-necessities

UBI is uninteresting in increasing my purchasing power. That wasn’t even what I was thinking about when I heard about UBI

If UBI is implemented I would happily collect it

But I wouldn’t be using my UBI for groceries and necessities. It would all be invested. All of it

Eventually I would quickly achieve a return from UBI that would give me passive income equivalent to my annual UBI and increase my purchasing power without having to even touch my UBI

UBI would just be cash flow source #23 for me. And would use it to generate cash flow source #24 and so on

After few years I will have done far more for my net worth with the UBI than a low income person will have done with theirs

Personally I don’t see UBI having any significance when it comes to addressing inequality. Not the way I would use it anyway

[pdxmonkey]

I like the idea of a UBI. I think $1000 monthly is far too high/costly as a number to start out with for a national experiment. I'd like to see it help with savings, emergencies, etc and see how a smaller amount works out tax policy wise in terms of having to pay for it prior to supporting a larger amount.

[Bloop Bloop]

Uh no.  Your spending ability went from $200K/year to $212K/year.  That is NOT a decrease.

The above sentence says nothing regarding the notion that UBI is a good idea or not, but your purchasing ability would not decrease by a third.  Come on!

I’m not intelligent enough to comment about the societal benefit of UBI, but what I can comment on is what would happen to me if UBI is implemented for all 18+ year olds irrespective of other sources of income

From what I’ve read, most low income people spend their UBI on groceries and other necessities

https://futurism.com/basic-income-money-spent-necessities

UBI is uninteresting in increasing my purchasing power. That wasn’t even what I was thinking about when I heard about UBI

If UBI is implemented I would happily collect it

But I wouldn’t be using my UBI for groceries and necessities. It would all be invested. All of it

Eventually I would quickly achieve a return from UBI that would give me passive income equivalent to my annual UBI and increase my purchasing power without having to even touch my UBI

UBI would just be cash flow source #23 for me. And would use it to generate cash flow source #24 and so on

After few years I will have done far more for my net worth with the UBI than a low income person will have done with theirs

Personally I don’t see UBI having any significance when it comes to addressing inequality. Not the way I would use it anyway

In reality, the money would have to come from somewhere, and it would be coming from your other sources of income either in the form of higher taxes and/or in the form of higher costs on certain goods/services.

[nancyfrank232]

In reality, the money would have to come from somewhere, and it would be coming from your other sources of income either in the form of higher taxes and/or in the form of higher costs on certain goods/services.

Of course. And that’s fine

I’m not one who complains about higher taxes when I increase rent on my tenants, company dividend checks increase, or my properties appreciate. It’s not difficult for a person with means to reduce, shelter or defer taxes

The point is that investors would be using the UBI in a vastly different manner than the poor

My UBI won’t go to $0 paying for groceries, utilities and other necessities 

The difference in net worth gain from deployed $1000/mo UBI between someone like myself and a low income person would be obvious sooner than later

(And removal of UBI after it’s implemented would hurt a low income person a lot more)

https://globalnews.ca/news/4365399/ontario-cancels-basic-income-pilot-project/

UBI in the hands of a low income person will go to $0 just for them to survive. Extra money in an affluent investor’s hands just creates more money above and beyond the extra money received

UBI has benefits for low income individuals, but addressing financial inequality isn’t one of them

[BTDretire]

Percent of workers that actually pay Federal income Taxes, 51%. 131.7/329.8=40%. That means that only 20% of the US population are hardworking taxpayers supporting the system. We might want to think seriously about how hard we squeeze them.
 

That is such a intellectually dishonest argument that I'm not sure any further retort is warranted.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/misconceptions-and-realities-about-who-pays-taxes

I hate that "but they pay payroll taxes" argument, meaning FICA taxes. Taxes paid into FICA is a fee that funds you and your family in a disability program and it provides money for your children should you die or be disabled. At retirement age it pays you a livable income in your old age. The legislators may have mixed the pools of money, but it still stands, they look at what you paid in to see what you receive.
 We can disagree on the subject, but I clearly said, "pay Federal income Taxes"

[kite]

I cant argue that a UBI is absolutely a perfect thing that needs to be enacted instantly. But logically, giving EVERYONE $12,000 per year on top of their income reduces income inequality. A person making minimum wage now makes nearly double off UBI plus work and I would make like 8% more. No way prices would raise drastically (logically there would be some inflation) because most people make more than minimum wage and so their income would not go up anywhere close to double. Again, I cant say that this is the perfect solution. The people on here who vehemently disagree with it ARE giving illogical reasons why it wouldn't work. If you're idealogically opposed to $ for nothing then fine. Please stop posting B.S. about how this wouldn't improve income inequality and how prices would just go up $12,000 per person. Small inflation associated with UBI, combined with a VAT WOULD absolutely hurt HIGH spenders (people who spend 6 figures plus per year) and financially benefit all others. There is no logical argument about that.

When 'everyone' qualifies for a subsidy, the prices do rise.  That's exactly what happened to college tuition. 
Inequality would still exist and become even more extreme.  Because 'everyone' is not actually everyone.  There is going to be zero support for a UBI entitlement to be extended to immigrants.  None.  And yet they are a large part of the poorest of the poor in our communities.  Among our immigrant populations, about 12 million or so are undocumented.  Those are the very poor, often scraping by without access welfare or SSI, without access to banking on whom prices will have gone up by 12,000 per year (or whatever the mythic number) at the same time that the champions of UBI believe that we no longer have need of foodbanks, shelters or charity medical care because 'everyone' just got a raise. 

We already have the EITC, which is a marvelous method of boosting the income of the working poor in an unrestricted manner.  As a bonus, it gives more to those with dependents.  Other need-based aid options offer incentives to producers and parts of the supply chain.  ie... Housing subsidies ensure housing availability & standards, Ag Subsidies (that's what SNAP is) ensure that farmers grow food and stores that serve the poor stock things besides liquor.  WIC checks are the reason that specific nutritious foods & baby formula is available in poor neighborhoods instead of something like the paint thinner that has been passed off in other countries. 
My opposition to UBI is about more than an ideological opposition to handouts.   I believe that aid should be means tested because some people need more than others and they always will.  It is immoral for those of us who don't need anything to give ourselves a boost that ultimately takes away from those who are in need.  And to do this systemically and fund it with a regressive tax as we seek to close the programs that were devised in response to need is cruel.     
I have a few loved ones scraping by below poverty levels.  And if you took away their subsidized apartment, their welfare & their food stamps, they would starve or die of exposure.  You see, they aren't poor because the economy is tough or because of technology.  They are poor because they aren't equipped to manage the activities of daily living.  They need food & shelter provided by someone else.  All their available cash gets frittered away in a manic cycle of their bipolar illness or on a daily basis on lottery tickets or on booze & eating at the diner.   My uncle is a nice guy.  He drops $20/daily at the diner.  Which accounts for most of his $800/month check.  The rest of it goes for gas & car insurance.  He's always going to need his free housing.  Always. 
My beef with every UBI proposal I've read (including Yang's) is that they are touted as a solution to poverty when they are nothing of the sort.  You should spend a heck of alot more time with actual poor people before concluding that what they need is $1000/month in cash.  For most of them, it will never be enough.  And the consequences of eliminating all the other patchwork of services is a catastrophe.

Or, perhaps, “if we took away their subsidies”...they would figure out they need to provide for themselves?

Why should we pay for your uncle’s $20/day diner habit? Why is that our responsibility?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/74-1/h39

Take it up with those guys.  Or rather, the current crop of representatives.  My point is that we have millions of people who eke out a living on something around the magic number of dollars that Mr. Yang proposes to give everyone.  And the poorest tenth are always going to be the poorest 10%, no matter what.  And their plight will get even worse because of rent-seeking.  And because a VAT is a regressive tax policy that hits the poor the hardest. 

And UBI isn't taking away anybody's subsidies.  It's giving one to every citizen with zero need to do so. 

[Vashy]

I support UBI, and actually think it flow logically from "human dignity", and my belief is based on observation among friends and family:
- One family member wanted to starts a business but was worried about "losing her benefits" (housing assistance), even though income from the side hustle would be volatile. End result: either she's doing the side hustle illegally (ie without paying tax) or didn't do it (I'm not 100% positive how this turned out).
- I know tons of artists (again, volatile income) for whom UBI would be a game-changer. Being able to create without having to worry about being able to make rent would lead to more and better work.
- One friend reached the top of the corporate ladder in his specific field but hit burnout. UBI would have helped him re-educate and re-tool towards the job he really wanted to do, which involved full-time courses and schooling without having to worry about money too much on top of a major life crisis.
- It would force companies to pay salaries for jobs that are hard/undesirable that are enough to attract and keep people in those jobs.They'd also have to treat employees better because they'd have the ability to walk away.
- I think it would be a major boon for small start-ups and businesses and overall entrepreneurship. More art and literature.
- Automation will take lots of jobs away. UBI and upskilling ("lifelong learning") can help weather that change.
- It would prevent countless misery in the benefits system. In the UK, lots of disabled and people on benefits have killed themselves when their benefits were halted. There's hunger in the sixth-largest economy on the planet - UBI would literally save lives (see "human dignity").
- More people might be able to afford to look after their children or elderly/infirm relatives instead of having to go to work to make rent.
- I still believe that people would go to work, but the collective mental fug and pressure would lift, arguably making society on the whole happier and more relaxed. It's kind of funny how our productivity has increased so much over the past couple generations but we work the same amount of hours. I'd be quite happy with that 10- or 20-hour workweek that Keynes prophesied for our age. I'd spend the time getting more skills, creating more art, travelling more and spending time with friends and family.

[NorthernBlitz]

I support UBI, and actually think it flow logically from "human dignity", and my belief is based on observation among friends and family:
- One family member wanted to starts a business but was worried about "losing her benefits" (housing assistance), even though income from the side hustle would be volatile. End result: either she's doing the side hustle illegally (ie without paying tax) or didn't do it (I'm not 100% positive how this turned out).
- I know tons of artists (again, volatile income) for whom UBI would be a game-changer. Being able to create without having to worry about being able to make rent would lead to more and better work.
- One friend reached the top of the corporate ladder in his specific field but hit burnout. UBI would have helped him re-educate and re-tool towards the job he really wanted to do, which involved full-time courses and schooling without having to worry about money too much on top of a major life crisis.
- It would force companies to pay salaries for jobs that are hard/undesirable that are enough to attract and keep people in those jobs.They'd also have to treat employees better because they'd have the ability to walk away.
- I think it would be a major boon for small start-ups and businesses and overall entrepreneurship. More art and literature.
- Automation will take lots of jobs away. UBI and upskilling ("lifelong learning") can help weather that change.
- It would prevent countless misery in the benefits system. In the UK, lots of disabled and people on benefits have killed themselves when their benefits were halted. There's hunger in the sixth-largest economy on the planet - UBI would literally save lives (see "human dignity").
- More people might be able to afford to look after their children or elderly/infirm relatives instead of having to go to work to make rent.
- I still believe that people would go to work, but the collective mental fug and pressure would lift, arguably making society on the whole happier and more relaxed. It's kind of funny how our productivity has increased so much over the past couple generations but we work the same amount of hours. I'd be quite happy with that 10- or 20-hour workweek that Keynes prophesied for our age. I'd spend the time getting more skills, creating more art, travelling more and spending time with friends and family.

I agree with it in principle and see how it would help lots of people and don't necessarily believe that it would reduce the incentive to work.

But my understanding is that the "U" in UBI means that it will ~ double the US budget.

I don't think that's feasible.

[Roland of Gilead]

How does UBI work on a small scale?

Say you have 10 people on an island and they agree on a UBI.   What happens when all 10 go on UBI?

Who gathers the fish and coconuts, who keeps the fire going?

This is the part I really don't understand but perhaps at some larger scale it does work.

[bacchi]

How does UBI work on a small scale?

Say you have 10 people on an island and they agree on a UBI.   What happens when all 10 go on UBI?

Who gathers the fish and coconuts, who keeps the fire going?

?? They starve or freeze, obviously.

This is the part I really don't understand but perhaps at some larger scale it does work.

Where does the UBI income come from? Does the island lease land or have a foreign company coconut tax? Tourism? Oil?

Is the UBI enough to pay others to fish or pick coconuts?

Do any of the islanders want anything that costs more than UBI, like a fancy house or a new board or a golf cart or a yacht? Maybe one of them wants his children to study in a good university.

[BTDretire]

Roland you have it right, don't doubt yourself.
 Can you image how productivity would drop if everyone got the same income no matter how much or how little you produce.
 Can you also see that an illegal underground capitalist society often develops because human achievement will find a way to produce to improve their condition. It happens in all societies that have tight controls to enforce equality, no matter how
poor that equality is on the economic scale.

[bacchi]

Can you also see that an illegal underground capitalist society often develops because human achievement will find a way to produce to improve their condition. It happens in all societies that have tight controls to enforce equality, no matter how
poor that equality is on the economic scale.

We're still discussing UBI, right?

No UBI proponent has ever suggested that a UBI recipient can't improve their condition. In fact, a UBI may often do the opposite and experiments (e.g., Canada) have found that a base income allows the poor to go back to school.