Do mustachians support universal basic income?

[SotI]

The only way I could see something like UBI to actually work is with the following prerequisites in place:
- automization of pretty much all the shit jobs in the world
- both population control and border control (geo-arbitrage issues)

I expect neither during my lifetime.

The market-based model may not be perfect at all, but so far it seems to have outperformed the alternatives - which as far as I recall history lessons have relied on much higher degrees of exploitation (talking globally here).

That does not mean things should not be improved (infrastructure, education and healthcare should be a minimum of available services to all), but this implicit UBI fantasy of everyone turning into a "model citizen" reminds me a lot of the communist fancy of "new man(kind)".

[scottish]

It definitely has the flavour of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs", doesn't it?

I think we should improve the existing programs instead of replacing them with UBI.

Anyway, we're getting a mini-UBI in Canada with the ongoing pandemic relief programs.   It'll be interesting to see how that works out and whether it becomes permanent or not.   (Permanent until the next conservative government, anyway.)

Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB)
Open for application

The Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) gives income support to employed and self-employed individuals who are directly affected by COVID-19 and are not entitled to Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. The CRB is administered by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

If you are eligible for the CRB, you can receive $1,000 ($900 after taxes withheld) for a 2-week period.

If your situation continues past 2 weeks, you will need to apply again. You may apply up to a total of 13 eligibility periods (26 weeks) between September 27, 2020 and September 25, 2021.

The interesting thing about the CRB is you still get your $500/week even if you would normally make less than $500 per week.   The minimum eligibility income seems to be $5000/year.   So if you made $5000 in the last year, you could quality for up to $13000 in CRB benefits this year.

[Bloop Bloop]

I like the free market a lot. I consider myself a capitalist.

But what's the free market solution to 30 million people without healthcare and half a million homeless in the richest country on earth?

Re. the homeless situation. I've spent a lot of time thinking and reading about the situation and possible solutions. Unfortunately no easy answers. And I don't think UBI is the answer either. Due to substance abuse issues, I expect a lot of that UBI would be ingested, not used for housing.
Definitely some people would use it for housing but probably not the majority of those with chronic housing issues.

The solution is universal healthcare and better mental health care. I don't think you can otherwise solve homelessness. We offered the city's homeless free shelter in quarantine hotels during the pandemic yet I still see heaps of homeless on the streets.

There's a difference between UBI proponents and those of us who are happy for people to have means-tested welfare. The difference is that the latter is more tailored to each person's needs, doesn't "overpay" anyone, and requires some form of validity testing, all of which mean less wastage and less market distortion / inflationary pressure as a result. I don't think people should expect a society where things (beyond the very basics) are provided to you obligation free even if you don't work, assuming you're able-bodied. That's not my vision of a good society.

[PDXTabs]

There's a difference between UBI proponents and those of us who are happy for people to have means-tested welfare. The difference is that the latter is more tailored to each person's needs, doesn't "overpay" anyone, and requires some form of validity testing, all of which mean less wastage and less market distortion / inflationary pressure as a result. I don't think people should expect a society where things (beyond the very basics) are provided to you obligation free even if you don't work, assuming you're able-bodied. That's not my vision of a good society.

I half agree, but with the right tax structure you can claw back every single dollar of UBI from higher earners. Eg, make it a pre-paid refundable tax credit that high earners don't get to keep with some phase-out.

[FIRE Artist]

The interesting thing about the CRB is you still get your $500/week even if you would normally make less than $500 per week.   The minimum eligibility income seems to be $5000/year.   So if you made $5000 in the last year, you could quality for up to $13000 in CRB benefits this year.

And that is on top of what was already collected on CERB I believe.

[LennStar]

The only way I could see something like UBI to actually work is with the following prerequisites in place:
- automization of pretty much all the shit jobs in the world
- both population control and border control (geo-arbitrage issues)

I expect neither during my lifetime.

No population control needed. Why??? Putting aside that western countries shrink without any birth control, the process is the same if you have 100 people or 100 million.
Border control - there is already too much. And it is totally insignicant anyway. Just pay UBI to only the members of the state.
And automatization is actually often a hen-egg problem. Wo could automate a whole lot of jobs even today (of course not with a button press, but it is possible), if we just decided to do so. In some cases it would even drastically improve the situation of the involved people (Like a robot that takes care patients out of the bed and helps them whenever they want instead of leaving it to care personal that comes after a half hour and has to make this back breaking work in a rush before hurrying off to the next one to do the same there. Or a lot of cleaning work. Or...)

There's a difference between UBI proponents and those of us who are happy for people to have means-tested welfare. The difference is that the latter is more tailored to each person's needs, doesn't "overpay" anyone, and requires some form of validity testing, all of which mean less wastage and less market distortion / inflationary pressure as a result.

In theory. In practice though it is more like... the opposite. Not to meantion that "means tested" often means "we decide who deserves, and poor/enthnic don't deserve".
There are some stories about infamous means-tested housing subisides in London I think it was, where the result was that the program was more expensive because of the bureocracy to find out the really needy as if you would just have given it to everyone that could potentially be eligible (=living in the town). And that while still 1/3 of the really eligible people didn't get the subsidy because of the hurdles of the process (which was the main goal most people think).

[Leisured]

I half agree, but with the right tax structure you can claw back every single dollar of UBI from higher earners. Eg, make it a pre-paid refundable tax credit that high earners don't get to keep with some phase-out.

Of course! Income is income, UBI is not some special category of income. Even on this forum there are posters who believe that people receiving a UBI would blow the income on booze and smokes. Why? Income is income.

I have in the past raised the example of the fictional character Bertie Wooster, created by P G Wodehouse, what Americans might call a 'trust fund kid' who does not have to work for an income. Now an UBI is low enough that most people would try to find supplemental income if they could. Or they might undertake volunteer work. In Australia, we have an unemployment scheme called 'work for the dole' where recipients are required to work about 20 hours a week for a charitable enterprise. There have been times when my wife has bought furniture from an op shop, as we call them in Australia, that is where people donate surplus clothes and furniture. The workers who deliver the furniture look surprisingly young, so I assume they are in a 'work for the dole' program.

[henramdrea]

If you're a high earner, looking only to have immediate pennies in your pocket is pretty shortsighted, when you can already afford a better lifestyle than anyone else, and the creativity and innovation that UBI would make space for will improve your life too.

Call me cynical but I somehow doubt that there are musical, creative, artistic or technological geniuses just waiting to be unleashed who can't currently afford a subsistence level job.

And I suspect market forces would improve my life more than the type of forces that would be liberated if no one had to work. Market forces have driven so much advancement.

This is something I agree with 100%.  Many of us still in the workforce feel tied to our jobs/carreers because of healthcare benefits.  If these basic human benefits weren't tied so closely to our jobs, many would indeed feel free to explore other carreer avenues.  It would free up minds to be used for innovation, not minds doing mindless work for a huge, slow corporation.

[TheContinentalOp]

Just pay UBI to only the members of the state.

That is laughably naive in the face of all the social spending already goes to non-citizens.

And do children born to non-citizens qualify?

If no, you're going to have sob story and sob story in the press until the answer becomes yes.

And if the answer is yes, what is the NPV of an inflation-adjusted U$12,000 lifetime annuity. Then solve for the equilibrium when a couple billion third worlders hear the news.

[LennStar]

That is laughably naive in the face of all the social spending already goes to non-citizens.

But that would not be UBI. If you are a university student from a different, you don't get UBI. If you seek asylum, you don't get UBI. 

And if the answer is yes, what is the NPV of an inflation-adjusted U$12,000 lifetime annuity. Then solve for the equilibrium when a couple billion third worlders hear the news.

They already "know" you can get everything free in Germany. (It's untrue, but a wide believe.)
So far most of them still prefer to live where they were born, have friends and hopefully an income (albeit far lower than "the dole" in Germany).

[mathlete]

What is population control? No more babies? Why do we need that in developed countries? It's already happening.

I'm 31 years old and out of the 15-20 similarly aged people I regularly hang out with, we have a grand total of 1 kid. Social security is racing towards reduced benefits because we simply don't have enough younger workers paying in for the benefits of older people. The median American is ten years older than they were in 1970. Fertility has fallen below replacement.

[mathlete]

Also, even without UBI, the United States is an attractive place to immigrate to. That said, net migration in the US (people in minus people out) is in the midst of a 20 year decline.

I have no idea what SotI is on about here.

[BookLoverL]

Certain countries are already widely known to have a higher standard of living, and yet the rest of the world seems mostly content to stay where it is, except under extreme conditions such as war or being part of a targeted group. I suspect this is because most people are at least somewhat emotionally attached to the place they've grown up. There are factors like culture and weather to consider. Also, most people probably don't even know all the details of other countries' benefits systems to begin with. So no, a country introducing UBI likely won't suddenly have immigration of several billion immediately afterwards.

[TheContinentalOp]

Well, it wouldn't be billions of migrants. The standard of living and quite probably the gov't would collapse before 2 billion showed up.

But as posited in an earlier comment if you offer UBI and no border security, the equilibrium will shift significantly.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-Million-Worldwide-Desire-Migrate-Permanently.aspx

Seven hundred million want to migrate. Now the US is the not first choice for a majority of them. But beggars can't be choosers. Add in spouses and dependent children and you fundamentally destroy the nation as it now is and any ability to provide UBI to current residents.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Well, it wouldn't be billions of migrants. The standard of living and quite probably the gov't would collapse before 2 billion showed up.

But as posited in an earlier comment if you offer UBI and no border security, the equilibrium will shift significantly.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-Million-Worldwide-Desire-Migrate-Permanently.aspx

Seven hundred million want to migrate. Now the US is the not first choice for a majority of them. But beggars can't be choosers. Add in spouses and dependent childrenand you fundamentally destroy the nation as it now is and any ability to provide UBI to current residents.

I understand that women who are new immigrants to the United States tend to  have more children on average than women who are already here.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I don't think people should expect a society where things (beyond the very basics) are provided to you obligation free even if you don't work, assuming you're able-bodied. That's not my vision of a good society.

I agree.

The social contract is an indispensable element of the ordered liberty of the United States and it orders liberty in other nations as well.

When necessary,  the state performs its part of the social contract by its provision of noncontributory entitlement benefits ( "free benefits") such as food, medical care, and  shelter, the  rudiments of life in our modern world.

The citizen performs their part of the social contract by living their life and managing their affairs so as not to impose burdens on society.

My opinion is that persons of sound mind and able body who have no source of sustenance other than what they can earn in the labor market ought to work to support themselves.

When they do so they perform their part of the social contract.

My opinion would differ in a largely redistributionist  political economy such as UBI.

[LennStar]

Well, it wouldn't be billions of migrants. The standard of living and quite probably the gov't would collapse before 2 billion showed up.

But as posited in an earlier comment if you offer UBI and no border security, the equilibrium will shift significantly.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-Million-Worldwide-Desire-Migrate-Permanently.aspx

Seven hundred million want to migrate. Now the US is the not first choice for a majority of them. But beggars can't be choosers. Add in spouses and dependent children and you fundamentally destroy the nation as it now is and any ability to provide UBI to current residents.

Where do I start?
First of all, just because people want, they don't do it. Or they would be on their way today, right?
And if they come, they are at the same time a market and a producer, too (and generally the most determined, which is the reason economies have higher growth with more immigrants).
Again there is also the misconception of money/production. Germany has an overproduction (stuff we produce but isn't used here) that is sufficient to take in ~10 million people. (Or, if you want to stretch it a bit, 10% of our population.)
Of course it doesn't work if they come all at once, as it doesn't work if you would start an UBI from zero to 100%.

[SotI]

To those who wondered about my comment on border and population control:

This is because I don't see a national UBI working under anything but a reasonably stable closed system.
Any open system will have incentives dynamics that will lead to social breakdown in not too distant a future (timeline debatable but I was just offering an opinion).

The first driver will stem from the even mid-term limitations on who is entitled to UBI.
Within the EU, ppl already get pretty much full (economic/social protection rights) within 1-5 years of residence, subject to initial employment. There don't need to be billions of migrants for that, a regular reasonably high influx will lead to a broadening of the UBI recipients and raising of the cost.

Increasing taxes (or other social contributions) will hit a shrinking workforce and tax payer base -> high-income net payer will leave to greener pastures (and if you got enough money and business stakes, they still exist).

Not to mention other problematic incentives and disincentives that I would expect: if u get paid based on the # of heads in household => breeding becomes a business model (imo don't count on women to follow the reproduction rate of times when they were encouraged to join the workforce - a lot will prefer to just stay at home).

Shitty jobs may have to be hired at higher wage rate, but this will increase short-term pull of migrants to fill these jobs (exhibit A: see the seasonal workers' crisis in spring-time this year, at least in Europe) - feeding into the aforementioning "entitlement base".
And long-term a technical solution (better business cases) reducing the tax base further.

At the end of the day, the whole topic depends on what view on human nature someone  holds. I will readily admit that my view is rather pessimistic.
     

[TheContinentalOp]

Well, it wouldn't be billions of migrants. The standard of living and quite probably the gov't would collapse before 2 billion showed up.

But as posited in an earlier comment if you offer UBI and no border security, the equilibrium will shift significantly.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-Million-Worldwide-Desire-Migrate-Permanently.aspx

Seven hundred million want to migrate. Now the US is the not first choice for a majority of them. But beggars can't be choosers. Add in spouses and dependent children and you fundamentally destroy the nation as it now is and any ability to provide UBI to current residents.

Where do I start?
First of all, just because people want, they don't do it. Or they would be on their way today, right?
And if they come, they are at the same time a market and a producer, too (and generally the most determined, which is the reason economies have higher growth with more immigrants).
Again there is also the misconception of money/production. Germany has an overproduction (stuff we produce but isn't used here) that is sufficient to take in ~10 million people. (Or, if you want to stretch it a bit, 10% of our population.)
Of course it doesn't work if they come all at once, as it doesn't work if you would start an UBI from zero to 100%.

Some, but not all are on their way today. But the scenario proposed is no border controls and a UBI.  How many of that 700 million would move, knowing that once they arrived, the could stay forever with free education for their kids, a lifetime annuity for any kids born in the US, and the potential for free medical care?

[John Galt incarnate!]

Some, but not all are on their way today. But the scenario proposed is no border controls and a UBI.  How many of that 700 million would move, knowing that once they arrived, the could stay forever with free education for their kids, a lifetime annuity for any kids born in the US, and the potential for free medical care?

 Rational agents always seek to maximize their satisfaction.

This most fundamental  principle of microeconomics ensures that the influx of immigrants would be enormous in an open-borders welfare state that provided a UBI.

Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman cautioned that   "You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state."

[TheContinentalOp]

If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.

No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.

[Phenix]

If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.

No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.

Money doesn't necessarily change behavior.  In some instances, it just magnifies it.

[LennStar]

If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.

No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.

While I am with your meaning, unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Even the "famous socialist" states in Europe have people sleeping on park benches even when there is a homeless shelter just a km away.
Some people are simply unable to function "normally".
Also in some areas the prices for housing have gone up just way too much. But that is a different topic and you could at least argue that with an UBI they could move away, even if that hurts their career. And in the US the health costs are another potential problem.

[TheContinentalOp]

If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.

No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.

While I am with your meaning, unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Even the "famous socialist" states in Europe have people sleeping on park benches even when there is a homeless shelter just a km away.
Some people are simply unable to function "normally".
Also in some areas the prices for housing have gone up just way too much. But that is a different topic and you could at least argue that with an UBI they could move away, even if that hurts their career. And in the US the health costs are another potential problem.

Healthcare is another issue. But housing prices are on topic. With the UBI, the homeless in SF and LA can move to Scottsbluff or Fayetteville and have a roof over their heads. As for the people who can't or won't function normally, we have jails and can re-open the asylums for them.

[TheContinentalOp]

https://www.businessinsider.com/jamba-using-robot-arm-smoothies-blendid-walmart-2020-12#in-total-the-robot-arm-and-its-respective-tech-can-make-45-drinks-in-one-hour-1

A robot is now making Jamba smoothies in a California Walmart in less than 3 minutes

[LennStar]

https://www.businessinsider.com/jamba-using-robot-arm-smoothies-blendid-walmart-2020-12#in-total-the-robot-arm-and-its-respective-tech-can-make-45-drinks-in-one-hour-1

A robot is now making Jamba smoothies in a California Walmart in less than 3 minutes

And I completely fail to understand this.
What is Jamba?
Did it take longer than 3 minutes before?

[henramdrea]

https://www.businessinsider.com/jamba-using-robot-arm-smoothies-blendid-walmart-2020-12#in-total-the-robot-arm-and-its-respective-tech-can-make-45-drinks-in-one-hour-1

A robot is now making Jamba smoothies in a California Walmart in less than 3 minutes

And I completely fail to understand this.
What is Jamba?
Did it take longer than 3 minutes before?

It's a fruit smoothie drink.  Fancy and tasty.  Probably takes a total of 5-8 minutes, about like a good cup of coffee normally with human labor.  This would include the transaction time at the register too.

[John Galt incarnate!]

If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.

No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.

Under the First Amendment begging is protected speech.

[PDXTabs]

If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.

No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.

Under the First Amendment begging is protected speech.

Sure, but sleeping on the sidewalk isn't. Of course, if that's the only place you have to sleep I'm not sure that a UBI is going to help. I mean, it will help. Less people will be sleeping rough, but the USA is woefully bad at building a sufficient amount of housing recently.

[Cranky]

UBI would have to be awfully generous to say love both the homeless problem and the mental health problem, and ultimately, there are people who can’t deal with the world at every income level.

I’m not opposed to UBI but I’m not convinced that it’s going to solve every problem.

[LennStar]

Nobody say every problem. But a lot of them will practically disappear, and saving a lot of costs in that process.

If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.

No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.

Under the First Amendment begging is protected speech.

Especially if you are a multi-billion corp begging for taypayer money harhar!

but the USA is woefully bad at building a sufficient amount of housing recently.

Not just the US. Everywhere where the "private is always better than state!" mantra has been dominant in the last decades.
Famously Vienna has not followed this style of housing develepment, and you can get city build living space at very fair conditions. 62% of Viennese life in public or "subsidized" housing. And they love it. Damn Socialists!

[scottish]

Aside from UBI being a really big experiment with someone's economy, I don't see how you're going to get rid of all the boutique tax credits and deductions.   For example, from my last tax return, I see deductions for:

Annual union, professional or like dues.
Universal child chare benefit repayment
Child care expenses
Disability supports
Clergy residence deduction
Canadian Forces and police deduction
Northern residents deduction

and there are even more credits.

volunteer firefighters
S&R volunteer
Canada employment amount
home buyer's amount
home accessibility expenses
interest on student loans

and so on.

Will UBI eliminate the need for all of these?    Or am I unclear on the concept?

[seattlecyclone]

Aside from UBI being a really big experiment with someone's economy, I don't see how you're going to get rid of all the boutique tax credits and deductions.   For example, from my last tax return, I see deductions for:

Annual union, professional or like dues.
Universal child chare benefit repayment
Child care expenses
Disability supports
Clergy residence deduction
Canadian Forces and police deduction
Northern residents deduction

and there are even more credits.

volunteer firefighters
S&R volunteer
Canada employment amount
home buyer's amount
home accessibility expenses
interest on student loans

and so on.

Will UBI eliminate the need for all of these?    Or am I unclear on the concept?

The concept of UBI does not require removing tax deductions that are deemed worthwhile. You have to look at it case by case. If you have a program designed to give a certain group of people their basic living expenses, but a UBI comes onto the scene to pay everyone's basic living expenses, maybe you don't need that other program anymore. If you have a tax credit or other program meant to give people incentives to do things that are seen as good for society and that people wouldn't do those things otherwise, a UBI does nothing to eliminate the justification for this type of thing.

[LennStar]

Aside from UBI being a really big experiment with someone's economy, I don't see how you're going to get rid of all the boutique tax credits and deductions.   For example, from my last tax return, I see deductions for:

Annual union, professional or like dues.
Universal child chare benefit repayment
Child care expenses
Disability supports
Clergy residence deduction
Canadian Forces and police deduction
Northern residents deduction

and there are even more credits.

volunteer firefighters
S&R volunteer
Canada employment amount
home buyer's amount
home accessibility expenses
interest on student loans

and so on.

Will UBI eliminate the need for all of these?    Or am I unclear on the concept?

An UBI has (directly) nothing to do with the tax code except that you may e.g. exchange it for the tax free amount.

Also be aware that practically every single tax deduction is a present to a voter group. If you take it away, those voters will be angry. That is why nearly all tries to "simplify" tax codes have failed.

You could - and should - replace most of deductions and direct transfers with the UBI, but to do that may actually be harder than having one itself.
So yeah - how good a UBI will be is mostly based on how good and big the political will is. Which is the main problem.

[TheContinentalOp]

If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.

No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.

Under the First Amendment begging is protected speech.

The Supreme Court has overruled itself in the past. No reason why they can't some to their senses and un-protect begging.

Or we could make a deal: A Constitutional Amendment that provides for UBI AND allows local gov'ts to prohibit begging in public places.

[TheContinentalOp]

If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.

No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.

Under the First Amendment begging is protected speech.

Sure, but sleeping on the sidewalk isn't. Of course, if that's the only place you have to sleep I'm not sure that a UBI is going to help. I mean, it will help. Less people will be sleeping rough, but the USA is woefully bad at building a sufficient amount of housing recently.

A real UBI (not an Alaska-style Permanent Fund) would allow for enough money to shelter: move to a small town, find a cheap apartment and get a couple of roommates. No more sleeping on the sidewalk. If you are such an iconoclast or so mentally ill that you refuse to live in a shelter, then head out to the Public Lands. There are literally hundreds of millions of acres to live on in this country where no one will bother you.

[TheContinentalOp]

Nobody say every problem. But a lot of them will practically disappear, and saving a lot of costs in that process.

If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.

No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.

Under the First Amendment begging is protected speech.

Especially if you are a multi-billion corp begging for taypayer money harhar!

but the USA is woefully bad at building a sufficient amount of housing recently.

Not just the US. Everywhere where the "private is always better than state!" mantra has been dominant in the last decades.
Famously Vienna has not followed this style of housing develepment, and you can get city build living space at very fair conditions. 62% of Viennese life in public or "subsidized" housing. And they love it. Damn Socialists!

The problem in the US isn't "affordable housing" it's "housing affordability."

[Alternatepriorities]

A real UBI (not an Alaska-style Permanent Fund) would allow for enough money to shelter: move to a small town, find a cheap apartment and get a couple of roommates. No more sleeping on the sidewalk.

As a first hand witness to how Alaskans generally spend their PFD checks each year I am genuinely interested in hearing why we should expect people to spend a UBI check differently. It is true that some Alaskans do spend the PFD to buy necessities, but based on the massive ad campaigns each year around PFD season most of the spending would be considered facepunch worthy on this forum. Also, based on what I've witness on the streets each October, giving people with a substance abuse problem a fat pile of money results in a bender until the money is gone.

If you are such an iconoclast or so mentally ill that you refuse to live in a shelter, then head out to the Public Lands. There are literally hundreds of millions of acres to live on in this country where no one will bother you.

Based on the condition of the green spaces in Anchorage this is a terrible idea. I'd have no issue with allowing or even encouraging people building a homestead and a life on piece of public land, but that's not what is happening. Most people no longer have the skills to make a home in the wilderness and would just create a pile of garbage that someone else will have to clean up.

[robartsd]

A real UBI (not an Alaska-style Permanent Fund) would allow for enough money to shelter: move to a small town, find a cheap apartment and get a couple of roommates. No more sleeping on the sidewalk.

As a first hand witness to how Alaskans generally spend their PFD checks each year I am genuinely interested in hearing why we should expect people to spend a UBI check differently. It is true that some Alaskans do spend the PFD to buy necessities, but based on the massive ad campaigns each year around PFD season most of the spending would be considered facepunch worthy on this forum. Also, based on what I've witness on the streets each October, giving people with a substance abuse problem a fat pile of money results in a bender until the money is gone.

Alaska Permanent Fund dividend is distributed annually. To be effective at providing a basic income, UBI would need to be paid monthly (like Social Security).

[Alternatepriorities]

A real UBI (not an Alaska-style Permanent Fund) would allow for enough money to shelter: move to a small town, find a cheap apartment and get a couple of roommates. No more sleeping on the sidewalk.

As a first hand witness to how Alaskans generally spend their PFD checks each year I am genuinely interested in hearing why we should expect people to spend a UBI check differently. It is true that some Alaskans do spend the PFD to buy necessities, but based on the massive ad campaigns each year around PFD season most of the spending would be considered facepunch worthy on this forum. Also, based on what I've witness on the streets each October, giving people with a substance abuse problem a fat pile of money results in a bender until the money is gone.

Alaska Permanent Fund dividend is distributed annually. To be effective at providing a basic income, UBI would need to be paid monthly (like Social Security).

While I that does appear to make a difference in practice, I'm uncomfortable with the implication that a significant portion of society can't be trusted to plan ahead for even a year. If that is true then how can we possibly expect a sustainable UBI system when any politician can promise more money right now regardless of future costs? This isn't a hypothetical, it's happening right now in Juneau. Our current governor was elected in no small part on his promise to restore the old more generous system for calculating the PFD despite the state's massive drop in oil revenue.

[MrUpwardlyMobile]

A real UBI (not an Alaska-style Permanent Fund) would allow for enough money to shelter: move to a small town, find a cheap apartment and get a couple of roommates. No more sleeping on the sidewalk.

As a first hand witness to how Alaskans generally spend their PFD checks each year I am genuinely interested in hearing why we should expect people to spend a UBI check differently. It is true that some Alaskans do spend the PFD to buy necessities, but based on the massive ad campaigns each year around PFD season most of the spending would be considered facepunch worthy on this forum. Also, based on what I've witness on the streets each October, giving people with a substance abuse problem a fat pile of money results in a bender until the money is gone.

Alaska Permanent Fund dividend is distributed annually. To be effective at providing a basic income, UBI would need to be paid monthly (like Social Security).

While I that does appear to make a difference in practice, I'm uncomfortable with the implication that a significant portion of society can't be trusted to plan ahead for even a year. If that is true then how can we possibly expect a sustainable UBI system when any politician can promise more money right now regardless of future costs? This isn't a hypothetical, it's happening right now in Juneau. Our current governor was elected in no small part on his promise to restore the old more generous system for calculating the PFD despite the state's massive drop in oil revenue.

I’ve come to believe that large segments of modern society are NPCs; they behave like little more than caricatures of a person.  UBI would not work in America not because it can’t work as a concept, but because people have so little self control and they’ve learned they can just vote for some schmuck who will promise them anything they want.

[LennStar]

If that is true then how can we possibly expect a sustainable UBI system when any politician can promise more money right now regardless of future costs?

That is indeed a big problem, but not much different from the ones today. Look at the tax code. 90% of code lines are there to give a certain group more money. It's the main reason why tax codes always get more complicated. For the rest read the book in my signature :D

A real UBI (not an Alaska-style Permanent Fund) would allow for enough money to shelter: move to a small town, find a cheap apartment and get a couple of roommates. No more sleeping on the sidewalk.

As a first hand witness to how Alaskans generally spend their PFD checks each year I am genuinely interested in hearing why we should expect people to spend a UBI check differently. It is true that some Alaskans do spend the PFD to buy necessities, but based on the massive ad campaigns each year around PFD season most of the spending would be considered facepunch worthy on this forum. Also, based on what I've witness on the streets each October, giving people with a substance abuse problem a fat pile of money results in a bender until the money is gone.

First of all an UBI would not come on top(??) of everything else in a yearly flush of money like a Christmas present. It would distributed monthly and such people would be used to it and use it for normal life.
That would also make away with all the extra ads. (And the normal ones are a problem that is there anyway).
Regarding substance abuse: All UBI experiments I know of about had either no increase in drugs or (more often) a reduction in substance abuse. That is because - surprise! - people tend to do drugs if they feel hopeless. If they are busy (but not stressed), the rate is lower. Also, getting off drugs is a lot easier if you know that you don't lose all your income if people (at work) find out about it.

[TheContinentalOp]

If that is true then how can we possibly expect a sustainable UBI system when any politician can promise more money right now regardless of future costs?

That is indeed a big problem, but not much different from the ones today. Look at the tax code. 90% of code lines are there to give a certain group more money. It's the main reason why tax codes always get more complicated. For the rest read the book in my signature :D

A real UBI (not an Alaska-style Permanent Fund) would allow for enough money to shelter: move to a small town, find a cheap apartment and get a couple of roommates. No more sleeping on the sidewalk.

As a first hand witness to how Alaskans generally spend their PFD checks each year I am genuinely interested in hearing why we should expect people to spend a UBI check differently. It is true that some Alaskans do spend the PFD to buy necessities, but based on the massive ad campaigns each year around PFD season most of the spending would be considered facepunch worthy on this forum. Also, based on what I've witness on the streets each October, giving people with a substance abuse problem a fat pile of money results in a bender until the money is gone.

First of all an UBI would not come on top(??) of everything else in a yearly flush of money like a Christmas present. It would distributed monthly and such people would be used to it and use it for normal life.
That would also make away with all the extra ads. (And the normal ones are a problem that is there anyway).
Regarding substance abuse: All UBI experiments I know of about had either no increase in drugs or (more often) a reduction in substance abuse. That is because - surprise! - people tend to do drugs if they feel hopeless. If they are busy (but not stressed), the rate is lower. Also, getting off drugs is a lot easier if you know that you don't lose all your income if people (at work) find out about it.

I am pretty sure UBI won't "work" in the sense that it will probably aggravate pathologies among those you describe as NPCs. But I also believe UBI is coming, so my ideas (some of which require amending the Constitution) are mostly to blunt the negative effects.

1. Limit Immigration.
2. Ban panhandling. Bring back vagrancy laws
3. Don't lose your UBI for committing crime (except UBI fraud)
4. If you take the UBI, you give up your right to vote until you've stopped taking UBI for 4 years.
5. Creditors can't attach/seize your UBI

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I can't think of anything worse or more economically damaging than limiting migration.

[MaybeBecca]

Jesus... A lot of this thread reads like some rich people that are offended that poor people dare to exist in public spaces. Some real unregulated capitalism takes.  Makes sense, considering the forum, but still somewhat shocking how little people care for the lives of others. I mean, calling people NPCs because they literally do the shit that people are taught to do by our society is gross, to put it bluntly. Capitalism does not extract value for shareholders without both underpaying people for their labor, and asking the population to spend spend spend. If everyone saved like they were to retire early, many sectors of the economy would take heavy losses.  How much of those companies that would be hurt would be in your index funds?

For me - I think a stronger social safety net in general would improve the lives of a lot of people.  For one, it's batshit that healthcare is tied to the employer.  I have a HDHP for my husband and I through my employer, and that costs $19k between myself and my employer.  That's absolutely outrageous for literally only preventive care, and it would likely be cheaper in total to have universal healthcare.  Even if it costs me a bit more personally in taxes, I would be fine with that if more people would have to suffer less, or not have to choose between dying of malnutrition or dying of uncontrolled illnesses.

Also, for all of the anti-immigrant, anti-migrant sentiment: undocumented immigrants pay at least $7bil a year into social security, something from which they'll likely never benefit.  How's that for a social safety net?

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

In my ideal society we would provide free healthcare, childcare, education, mental health services and homeless shelters. The money would be funded by a gift/estate tax.

Two immediate perks:
1. Decreases the intergenerational transfer of wealth.
2. Gives everyone a decent safety net.

Two less obvious perks:
3. Funding services is better than giving people money in their hand, in my view. Give someone the equivalent amount of money in his hand and he can still spend it on other things and then lack money for the services.
4. Funding the basics in society makes any anti-meritocratic argument harder. If we tax estates, and we give everyone free education, our meritocratic foundation is stronger.

[TheContinentalOp]

I can't think of anything worse or more economically damaging than limiting migration.

I don't want to get into a debate on the pluses and minuses of immigration, but in the context of a UBI, it's madness to allow massive amounts of unskilled immigrants. You'll either bankrupt the country if you extend to them the UBI (and there will be political pressure to do so. See the states giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates), or we'll create a permanent servile class if we exclude them from the UBI (see some of the tiny oil-rich Mideast sheikdoms).

[TheContinentalOp]

Jesus... A lot of this thread reads like some rich people that are offended that poor people dare to exist in public spaces. Some real unregulated capitalism takes.  Makes sense, considering the forum, but still somewhat shocking how little people care for the lives of others. I mean, calling people NPCs because they literally do the shit that people are taught to do by our society is gross, to put it bluntly. Capitalism does not extract value for shareholders without both underpaying people for their labor, and asking the population to spend spend spend. If everyone saved like they were to retire early, many sectors of the economy would take heavy losses.  How much of those companies that would be hurt would be in your index funds?

For me - I think a stronger social safety net in general would improve the lives of a lot of people.  For one, it's batshit that healthcare is tied to the employer.  I have a HDHP for my husband and I through my employer, and that costs $19k between myself and my employer.  That's absolutely outrageous for literally only preventive care, and it would likely be cheaper in total to have universal healthcare.  Even if it costs me a bit more personally in taxes, I would be fine with that if more people would have to suffer less, or not have to choose between dying of malnutrition or dying of uncontrolled illnesses.

Also, for all of the anti-immigrant, anti-migrant sentiment: undocumented immigrants pay at least $7bil a year into social security, something from which they'll likely never benefit.  How's that for a social safety net?

I have nothing against "poor people" in public places. I do have a problem with aggressive panhandling, sleeping on the sidewalk, and public defecation. And remember we're having a discussion about what things would be like with a liveable UBI (say U$12,000 a year). That's a pretty good deal, and part of the that contract should be don't make things worse for society. With that level of support, there's no excuse for homelessness, panhandling, and vagrancy.

The reason that health insurance is tied to employment goes back to the gov't classifying that income as non-taxable.  A good reminder that gov't solutions often create problems larger that the ones they were designed to fix.

Concerning The U$7billlion that illegal aliens pay in SS taxes:

1. A rounding error on the budget
2. Offset by the EITC which they can file for with an ITN and it's refundable credit, so it's not clear what the net benefit to the treasury is or if there even is one.
3. If they do become legal at some point, then they do get credit
4. Doesn't come close to covering gov't expenditures on their behalf. Hell, the education per pupil expenditure in my district is U$13,000/yr, and that doesn't include, debt service, capital spending, and pension contributions
5. The fact is if you're not in the 60-70th income percentile, the gov't  is "losing" money on you. That describes almost all illegals along with a hell of a lot of Americans.

[TheContinentalOp]

In my ideal society we would provide free healthcare, childcare, education, mental health services and homeless shelters. The money would be funded by a gift/estate tax.

Two immediate perks:
1. Decreases the intergenerational transfer of wealth.
2. Gives everyone a decent safety net.

Two less obvious perks:
3. Funding services is better than giving people money in their hand, in my view. Give someone the equivalent amount of money in his hand and he can still spend it on other things and then lack money for the services.
4. Funding the basics in society makes any anti-meritocratic argument harder. If we tax estates, and we give everyone free education, our meritocratic foundation is stronger.

Even a 100% inheritance/gift tax wouldn't come close to paying for all the programs you list.  And you wouldn't get close to a 100% because rich people create foundations/donate/spend a big chunk of it. I won't even get into the deadweight losses of to businesses and farms that would have to be liquidated.

Plus K-12 education is already free in the USA.  If you're talking about free college, that's even a bigger mistake. That would encourage even more people to go to college, when it's clear less people should be attending.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Most of the things we listed we already have in Australia. I don't think it would require much more than an estate tax to come up with the other income. (I'm not suggesting doing away with income tax entirely.) Sure people could spend their estates before they die (but that's okay, since goods and services are also taxed here at 10%). They could donate it, but that has to go to a legit charity. Businesses/farms wouldn't have to be liquidated since the estate tax bill could be spread over many years.

I'm not talking about free college. K-12 education is enough. College can continue to be meritocratic.

I think that if we give people free childcare, healthcare, mental health services and education, and if we cripple the intergenerational transmission of wealth, then people can no longer complain that society is not meritocratic.