That's an additional $6000 difference a year in just three years. Which means when the short experiment ended, the control group was making more money. I wonder if this is going to be used as an...
On average, incomes rose significantly for all groups, though slightly higher for the control group. Incomes for recipients of the $1,000 rose from just under $30,000 to $45,710, while incomes for the control group started at a similar level but grew higher, to $50,970.
"Cash offers flexibility and may increase agency to make employment decisions that align with recipients' individual circumstances, goals, and values," the report's authors said.
That's an additional $6000 difference a year in just three years. Which means when the short experiment ended, the control group was making more money. I wonder if this is going to be used as an attack by detractors.
Researchers, however, said they found no "direct evidence of improved access to healthcare or improvements to physical and mental health" among those who received $1,000 payments.
"We do see significant reductions in stress, mental distress, and food insecurity during the first year, but those effects fade out by the second and third years of the program," the report said, noting that $1,000 a month could only do so much. "Cash alone cannot address challenges such as chronic health conditions, lack of childcare, or the high cost of housing."
So recipients didnt access more mental health, but they had better mental health.
Overall it seems to be a success I think, but the idea going through will need to be pushed by AI beneficiaries like this guy and Geoffrey Hinton.
The US isn't ready, still in grips by the fake welfare queen narrative. But wouldn't it be nice to see it on ballots one day. Hopefully Canada first
I read the mental health effects a bit differently. Giving someone more money makes them happier in the short term, but it ultimately doesn't change their life very much in the medium term per...
I read the mental health effects a bit differently. Giving someone more money makes them happier in the short term, but it ultimately doesn't change their life very much in the medium term per this study. This doesn't seem that surprising, and it's a knock against UBI as a social priority. We can't prioritize everything at once. It seems there may be better avenues to address homelessness and poverty than UBI.
I think it’s also just the amount given in this ubi. Maybe it’s in a different cost of living area, but where I live, $1000 will get you a room in a shared house. Not even a studio, let alone a 1...
I think it’s also just the amount given in this ubi. Maybe it’s in a different cost of living area, but where I live, $1000 will get you a room in a shared house. Not even a studio, let alone a 1 bedroom. That is almost decent if you are a single person, but if you have any dependents that is very inadequate.
To use a metaphor, it’s like we performed a study to find out how to fight fires. Our study results say that dumping a single bucket of water on a house fire does very little to reduce the fire damage. And with that information we conclude that using water to fight fire is a bad idea?
$12k extra on < $28k income is a very, very sizable amount.
It officially began in 2019 when 3,000 Texas and Illinois residents across urban, suburban, and rural areas enrolled. All of these residents had incomes below $28,000. A third got $1,000 a month for three years, while the rest — the control group — got $50 a month. No enrolled participants lost their existing benefits.
$12k extra on < $28k income is a very, very sizable amount.
Maybe the study authors could offer a stronger defense than business insider, but these results sound quite disappointing. Chronic health conditions are very challenging, I understand that. But...
Maybe the study authors could offer a stronger defense than business insider, but these results sound quite disappointing.
Cash alone cannot address challenges such as chronic health conditions, lack of childcare, or the high cost of housing.
Chronic health conditions are very challenging, I understand that. But claiming that cash alone can’t fix housing and childcare costs is absurd, you can use the cash to pay for housing and childcare!
Though I’d caution that if your control group’s income nearly doubled over three years (on average!), I feel like we should be popping the champagne cork. I say this in jest, as we know there is real poverty out there to address, but this study design just didn’t work (hindsight is 20/20).
Though your Altman types real fear is something like “under UBI, everyone will stop working, spend all days on soma, and be more miserable than before”, so for him this study having a null-ish result could be a real success.
I think one big problem is that the amount in the study simply isn't enough in a lot of places to address these things. I'm sure the $1000/month could really help with rent for someone who already...
Chronic health conditions are very challenging, I understand that. But claiming that cash alone can’t fix housing and childcare costs is absurd, you can use the cash to pay for housing and childcare!
I think one big problem is that the amount in the study simply isn't enough in a lot of places to address these things. I'm sure the $1000/month could really help with rent for someone who already has housing, but it's probably not going to suffice to get someone housed who wouldn't be otherwise (especially given that landlords tend to be very picky about evidence of income when you're applying to rent a place). $1000 a month may or may not even cover childcare -- the cost of childcare is very dependent on location and on the ages/number of children involved, but there are definitely parts of the US where it's unlikey to even cover the costs for one child. And of course covering the costs of a chronic health condition is in a completely different realm from the quantity of money given in this study.
I'm definitely not against UBI in principle, but in practice I think it makes more sense and is ultimately better for the government to directly fund the important things that it could potentially pay for first. Plenty of European countries (including the one I live in) heavily subsidize all three of these things, and while it's not perfect, it's a marked improvement over the US. UBI seems like an indirect approach to the same ultimate problem that appeals to people's notion of "personal responsibility" and fails to take advantage of the increased power the state has in a state-subsidized system compared to the average citizen purchasing the same services privately.
My concern about UBI is not whether it would have a positive effect on people's lives (it seems pretty clear that it would), but whether it would be a positive enough effect that it would justify...
My concern about UBI is not whether it would have a positive effect on people's lives (it seems pretty clear that it would), but whether it would be a positive enough effect that it would justify the cost — and we must not ignore opportunity costs.
From my perspective, there is very little value in giving money to people who don't need it. For example, if an extra $1000 showed up in my bank account, it's highly likely I wouldn't even notice; it certainly wouldn't materially change my life in any way. But for someone who is struggling, that's money that means their kid can go to the dentist or that they have a little bit of padding before they risk missing rent, but they'll still be struggling afterwards. Instead of giving me $1000 and them $1000, why not give them $2000?
The idea behind UBI is that people like me will vote for it because we want that extra $1000 even if it will not make a lick of difference in our lives. But, as someone who pays a lot more in taxes than I would receive back in such a scheme, I will vote hard against UBI because it achieves too little for too high a price. As someone who grew up in a poor family, I feel pride when I pay my taxes, and I want to see them do the most good possible.
So, I got pretty deep into this when Andrew Yang was running in 2019. So I'll offer up the rational I remember from that period for it being universal. The primary argument as I recall was stigma....
Instead of giving me $1000 and them $1000, why not give them $2000?
So, I got pretty deep into this when Andrew Yang was running in 2019. So I'll offer up the rational I remember from that period for it being universal.
The primary argument as I recall was stigma. There's social stigma attached to welfare and other social programs. If it's universal, everyone gets it, which would in theory remove or significantly curb the stigma.
For your specific question I quoted above, I think there's a conversation to be had about if $1000 is actually enough (as some of the economists in the survey you linked mention). I think it's definitely not, $12k is not enough for anyone to live on. Which I think is the bar a true UBI should aim for.
As for the other side of the equation (someone who doesn't need the income) the idea is that even though they did get $1000, if they make over a certain amount then they end up paying it right back in taxes. Which seems silly and pointless, except that if your income drops for any reason you don't have to file any paperwork or navigate any government bureaucracy, a check still shows up. Even though I'm doing pretty well for myself, the thought of that kind of safety net would give me tremendous peace of mind.
Oh, this is a big one. My partner grew up in a poor but hard-working and proud family in rural Oregon. His parents didn't apply for any welfare, despite being very eligible. There are many people...
The primary argument as I recall was stigma. There's social stigma attached to welfare and other social programs. If it's universal, everyone gets it, which would in theory remove or significantly curb the stigma.
Oh, this is a big one. My partner grew up in a poor but hard-working and proud family in rural Oregon. His parents didn't apply for any welfare, despite being very eligible.
There are many people who feel that accepting welfare is an implication of their own inability to provide for themselves.
You could say that they should get over it, but people are going to be people.
It might not just be the stigma. Depending on the jurisdiction, welfare payments are not easy money. I grew up in a poor area of Atlanta and knew a lot of people who were eligible for food stamps,...
It might not just be the stigma. Depending on the jurisdiction, welfare payments are not easy money.
I grew up in a poor area of Atlanta and knew a lot of people who were eligible for food stamps, but the only ones who went through the trouble of getting them were people who had absolutely no other option. It wasn't stigma that stopped them (after all, they freely shared with me and the rest of our social group that they were eligible and looking into it), but rather the fact that they had to show up in person to receive the payment at a location that was several miles away from the nearest bus stop, and there was a shit load of paperwork associated with it that took up hours of their time each month — and then once they had the money (which was always way too little, like $15-20 a month), there was very little they were allowed to spend it on.
They found it strictly preferable to just beg for money by the side of the road, even though that's way more stigmatized than receiving government assistance.
$12k a year for every American is already unfathomably expensive. The only way to make that kind of payment feasible (let alone an actual liveable wage!) would be to start excluding some people...
$12k a year for every American is already unfathomably expensive. The only way to make that kind of payment feasible (let alone an actual liveable wage!) would be to start excluding some people from receiving payments. I've seen proposals to exclude children and young adults — the very populations with the highest rates of poverty — making it an inherently regressive system. We'd be asking people who depend on minuscule welfare payments just to scrape by each day give that up so that I can receive a payment that won't affect me. It's bonkers.
If tax rates are set so that at some level of income people are paying $1000 more in taxes for every $1000 they get from a UBI, that's then net neutral, right? Then there's never any question of...
If tax rates are set so that at some level of income people are paying $1000 more in taxes for every $1000 they get from a UBI, that's then net neutral, right? Then there's never any question of whether you should be getting the money or not, it shows up for everyone, and the people who can afford it pay taxes at rates that mean they're not ending up with extra money they don't need. Doesn't that then resolve your concern? People who don't need it are then not actually coming out ahead, but it removes any need to apply for it when someone's situation changes. It means that those with more income are already excluded just from being taxed.
Consider this alternative: You don't apply for these payments at all. When you do your taxes, they are calculated automatically. If you make a high income (and have few deductions, etc.), your tax...
Consider this alternative: You don't apply for these payments at all. When you do your taxes, they are calculated automatically. If you make a high income (and have few deductions, etc.), your tax payment is higher. If you have a low income (and have big deductions, etc.), your net payment is lower — and can actually range negative.
This means that if you have no income at all and have mouths to feed, you receive the highest possible payment and it is a life-changing amount. If you have a moderate income, you receive a smaller payment, but it will still do you some serious good; it means you can make a real improvements to your life, like quitting your low-paying job to move to a city with a better job market. If you make a high income, nothing really changes for you (except for lower crime rates, more innovation, and all those other good things that come with the alleviation of poverty). If you make a very high income, then you pay more in taxes; that sucks for you, but hey, now there is a stronger economy and more consumers to buy your products.
I love that idea; the main challenge is that it's a yearly calculation, not a weekly or monthly one, and so the people who are making less would need to have their money sent monthly; but I feel...
I love that idea; the main challenge is that it's a yearly calculation, not a weekly or monthly one, and so the people who are making less would need to have their money sent monthly; but I feel like we're more or less on the same page regarding helping everyone who needs help, and the questions are really about the best process to make that happen.
And to that point, I feel (and it is just a feeling) that higher taxes and giving everyone the same amount of money (but with the more well off having it taken back in taxes) is something that has a better story to it. It's not welfare, it's the Citizens Dividend, available to everyone due to the incredible wealth and productivity of our great nation. And because everyone gets it, it's far more protected from future assholery from selfish people than something that only helped the poor. At least, that's my take.
Just $12,000 per American per year would cost almost $4 trillion dollars. It would double the federal budget overnight unless you slashed all other social welfare programs (which would mean it...
Just $12,000 per American per year would cost almost $4 trillion dollars. It would double the federal budget overnight unless you slashed all other social welfare programs (which would mean it would only be a moderate increase). And $12,000 isn’t even that much if the premise is that you can survive on that.
UBI is easier to sell to voters: these are the fruits of automation. So, the framing would be: the money isn't being taken from one person and given to another; it's what people are owed by the...
UBI is easier to sell to voters: these are the fruits of automation. So, the framing would be: the money isn't being taken from one person and given to another; it's what people are owed by the robots that have (partially) displaced workers.
Determining need is also difficult. The vast majority of American households would definitely feel an extra $1000/month, not just the poor: it'd give middle-class families more breathing room.
It will be a hard sell to voters if it ever becomes enough of a mainstream platform that experts start weighing in en masse and explaining how much it would cost and all the social programs that...
It will be a hard sell to voters if it ever becomes enough of a mainstream platform that experts start weighing in en masse and explaining how much it would cost and all the social programs that would have to be scrapped to pay for it.
We can tell voters that automation is paying for it, but that would be a lie. Automation won't actually pay for it unless we can figure out how to effectively tax automation. Meanwhile, corporations will put every lobbying dollar they've got toward making sure that doesn't happen and that middle class taxpayers are left just shuffling money around — paying money in taxes just to receive the same money (minus bureaucratic costs) back.
I own a house, and am not at risk of missing my mortgage but an extra thousand a month would absolutely help me. Medical shit is expensive even with Medicaid covering ton of it. (Caregivers so I...
I own a house, and am not at risk of missing my mortgage but an extra thousand a month would absolutely help me. Medical shit is expensive even with Medicaid covering ton of it. (Caregivers so I can rest are even more expensive. So is someone to clean if we don't have the former)
There's such a a range between living behind on rent, and not noticing that much money a month.
I just want to be clear, I wouldn't flag as lower income. My partner does, because we're not married, and I'm someone who's glad to pay taxes for schools and roads and all the things. But I don't...
I just want to be clear, I wouldn't flag as lower income. My partner does, because we're not married, and I'm someone who's glad to pay taxes for schools and roads and all the things. But I don't have a lot of breathing room. At some point doing the math to figure out who will notice that 1k vs who won't is probably not worth it.
Like drug testing welfare recipients, it's less expensive just to give it to everyone.
It costs a lot of money to do drug testing of welfare recipients because, well, drug tests aren't free. Determining people's income is effectively free because the IRS already does it in order to...
Like drug testing welfare recipients, it's less expensive just to give it to everyone.
It costs a lot of money to do drug testing of welfare recipients because, well, drug tests aren't free.
Determining people's income is effectively free because the IRS already does it in order to collect taxes. That will still happen whether universal basic income — or redistributive basic income or any other social program — is implemented or not. We are already paying that cost no matter what, and so we might as well make the best use of it.
Now now, we don't let the IRS share that math because what would H&R Block and TurboTax do then? But I do understand your point, I think others have made the closet I have to an actual point for...
Now now, we don't let the IRS share that math because what would H&R Block and TurboTax do then?
But I do understand your point, I think others have made the closet I have to an actual point for me, so I'll bow out of that!
Except. - sorry I had a point after all- not means testing is how people like my partner and I could actually get married. His disability means we need Medicaid on top of Medicare. Because if he had my income, we'd be buried in medical debt. And godsforbid he needs a nursing home for rehab again. I sacrifice that legal status for the peace of mind of never having to avoid medical care because we can't afford it. UBI doesn't just reduce the stigma it levels.the playing field. Even if you'd just have to pay it back in taxes.
The way means testing is done for medicare, medicaid, etc. should be a crime and I'm very sorry you and your partner have been subjected to it. It is a huge amount of added effort that is already...
The way means testing is done for medicare, medicaid, etc. should be a crime and I'm very sorry you and your partner have been subjected to it. It is a huge amount of added effort that is already done at tax time anyway, and it's done in such a stupid way that it leads to really bad incentive structures (e.g., refusing a higher paid job because the loss in benefits is greater than the increase in income). It's almost like it's designed to crush the human spirit and trap people in poverty.
In my opinion, the way you would want to do basic income is make it part of a progressive tax system. If you make a high income, you pay more taxes. But if you make a low income, you don't just pay no taxes; you receive money as a kind of negative tax. I'm strongly in favor of making this line steeper (i.e., more progressive) and shifting it toward higher income levels (so that the lower middle class are broadly receiving payments instead of paying taxes based on their incomes, assets, and deductions — certainly including things like disabilities and caretaker status).
For all I know, you actually have a higher income than I do (I am a dual citizen of Australia and the US, and my income is less than the national average in Australia and quite a bit less than the national average in the US; I would probably be classed as lower middle class). But I live in a very low COL area, I do not have a mortgage, I do not have a partner with disabilities, etc. As a consequence, I end up putting more money into savings than I spend without even trying. When tax time comes around, this means I have very few deductions and end up paying a much higher tax than I would otherwise. And that's fair. More than fair. I actively want to contribute to a social safety net for you and anyone else experiencing financial strife; without such safety nets, I might not have survived to adulthood.
I just want to do it as effectively as possible, to help as many people as possible as much as possible, and my fear is that UBI would be even more regressive than the systems we have already (economists seem to think so, anyway), would be very hard to fine tune and make iterative improvements on, and would be harder to ditch if it wasn't working like it's supposed to (which I think is highly likely).
For the benefit of those who didn't visit the link, it's a poll of various economists based on this premise: Many of the responses took issue with the specific number ($13k), others didn't like...
Economists seem to strongly favor redistributive social programs over universal basic income
For the benefit of those who didn't visit the link, it's a poll of various economists based on this premise:
Granting every American citizen over 21-years old a universal basic income of $13,000 a year — financed by eliminating all transfer programs (including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing subsidies, household welfare payments, and farm and corporate subsidies) — would be a better policy than the status quo.
Many of the responses took issue with the specific number ($13k), others didn't like the idea of getting rid of social security and medicare. Which seems like a very extreme proposal! Many were undecided or cited the need for more data about UBI.
So I don't know if it's a good representation of economists core response to some form of UBI.
Instead of giving me $1000 and them $1000, why not give them $2000?
Yes, I completely agree, however one of the compelling arguments for UBI is simplicity and low barrier to entry.
As we've seen from existing social welfare programs, many start off with challenging requirements in terms of paperwork and proof, both initial and ongoing. And then from there it gets progressively worse as successive rounds of politicians and adminstrators make the easy argument that we need to make sure people don't take advantage of the systems.
Until you end up with a time consuming, invasive and otherwise daunting system that costs a lot of money to administer. One program infamously did warrentless, suspicionless home searches of welfare recipients.
For many people on the economic and social fringes, the paperwork alone is a big barrier. Pride and the general negative perception of welfare are issues too. From what I've read, recipients also often have to answer questions and meet requirements that would seem inappropriate anywhere outside of the criminal justice system.
Whereas UBI would cost dramatically less to administer and have little to no barrier for recipients.
That said, it seems to me that an income cutoff, even a graduated one, similar to what happened during the pandemic, would be relatively easy to implement and administer.
Universal, adj., "of, affecting, or done by all people in a particular group." Let's presume the working-age population of the U.S., which was 200 million (in 2020). That's $200 billion per month....
Universal, adj., "of, affecting, or done by all people in a particular group."
Let's presume the working-age population of the U.S., which was 200 million (in 2020). That's $200 billion per month. The 2020 U.S. GDP was $21.06 trillion. That earmarks 1% of the GDP per month per person for UBI. Would someone explain how UBI cash flow works as a universal income?
Taxes. But really, 2023 outlays on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs was 3.5 trillion. That's 290 billion per month. So to put the numbers into perspective, this isn't...
Taxes.
But really, 2023 outlays on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs was 3.5 trillion. That's 290 billion per month. So to put the numbers into perspective, this isn't an absurd amount of money by US budget standards. There would need to be higher taxes on people with more money, and some of it would come from redirection from other social services that weren't as needed because of the UBI, but it's not a weird or insurmountable amount of spending.
Not truly universal, then? The wealthy (for some definition of wealth) wouldn't receive income? The top 1% earners (2 million of the working-age population) would be taxed at a higher rate to...
Not truly universal, then? The wealthy (for some definition of wealth) wouldn't receive income? The top 1% earners (2 million of the working-age population) would be taxed at a higher rate to support UBI?
UBI plans generally involve the wealthy still receiving income. The argument is that the cost of giving some money to people who don't need it is less than the cost of means-testing and other...
UBI plans generally involve the wealthy still receiving income. The argument is that the cost of giving some money to people who don't need it is less than the cost of means-testing and other paperwork involved in a system that isn't universal. Means-tested cash payouts cease to be UBI by definition imo.
The wealthy are taxed at a higher rate than the poor in almost every sane tax system, so that bit isn't unique to UBI, though. It's just how governments get money.
Universal, in that everyone receives it. Paid for by taxes, because that's how all government programs are funded unless you like endless deficit spending. I didn't specify who was being taxed,...
Universal, in that everyone receives it. Paid for by taxes, because that's how all government programs are funded unless you like endless deficit spending.
I didn't specify who was being taxed, because we're talking theory rather than specific implementation. Presumably a combination of corporate, individual, and payroll taxes, given that those are the primary taxation revenue streams.
Here’s a link to the full content published by Open Research, in case it’s of interest. Truth be told, none of this was what I was interested in learning? The sell I had heard was that a UBI...
Truth be told, none of this was what I was interested in learning? The sell I had heard was that a UBI program is dramatically cheaper, more efficient, and more equitable than administering several, parallel, means-based benefits programs (eg “you must be at least ‘this poor’, ‘this old’, ‘have this many limbs and no more’, etc.). The initial reports don’t seem to be measuring that as far as I can tell? But I admittedly only skimmed the titles.
Also, quick sidebar, but this quote was very weird:
In this scenario, Altman said, people would get a "slice" of the computational resources of the large language model GPT-7, which they could use however they liked.
I assume Altman was referring to a future, “AGI” LLM when he mentioned GPT-7, and the LLM writing this blog post missed that this was a rhetorical device not an actual product?
Cash benefit programs are pretty different, and the research backing them is a lot more supportive. The whole idea behind UBI is the universal part, so it needs to be evaluated separately (like...
Cash benefit programs are pretty different, and the research backing them is a lot more supportive. The whole idea behind UBI is the universal part, so it needs to be evaluated separately (like this study did).
That's an additional $6000 difference a year in just three years. Which means when the short experiment ended, the control group was making more money. I wonder if this is going to be used as an attack by detractors.
Being able to work less was also briefly mentioned. I don't see it as a terrible thing: we don't need [bus drivers falling asleep at the wheel](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/2189213/hong-kong-bus-driver-behind-crash-injured-19-jailed-17] or otherwise having more drunk-tired drivers on the road.
So recipients didnt access more mental health, but they had better mental health.
Overall it seems to be a success I think, but the idea going through will need to be pushed by AI beneficiaries like this guy and Geoffrey Hinton.
The US isn't ready, still in grips by the fake welfare queen narrative. But wouldn't it be nice to see it on ballots one day. Hopefully Canada first
I read the mental health effects a bit differently. Giving someone more money makes them happier in the short term, but it ultimately doesn't change their life very much in the medium term per this study. This doesn't seem that surprising, and it's a knock against UBI as a social priority. We can't prioritize everything at once. It seems there may be better avenues to address homelessness and poverty than UBI.
I think it’s also just the amount given in this ubi. Maybe it’s in a different cost of living area, but where I live, $1000 will get you a room in a shared house. Not even a studio, let alone a 1 bedroom. That is almost decent if you are a single person, but if you have any dependents that is very inadequate.
To use a metaphor, it’s like we performed a study to find out how to fight fires. Our study results say that dumping a single bucket of water on a house fire does very little to reduce the fire damage. And with that information we conclude that using water to fight fire is a bad idea?
$12k extra on < $28k income is a very, very sizable amount.
Maybe the study authors could offer a stronger defense than business insider, but these results sound quite disappointing.
Chronic health conditions are very challenging, I understand that. But claiming that cash alone can’t fix housing and childcare costs is absurd, you can use the cash to pay for housing and childcare!
Though I’d caution that if your control group’s income nearly doubled over three years (on average!), I feel like we should be popping the champagne cork. I say this in jest, as we know there is real poverty out there to address, but this study design just didn’t work (hindsight is 20/20).
Though your Altman types real fear is something like “under UBI, everyone will stop working, spend all days on soma, and be more miserable than before”, so for him this study having a null-ish result could be a real success.
I think one big problem is that the amount in the study simply isn't enough in a lot of places to address these things. I'm sure the $1000/month could really help with rent for someone who already has housing, but it's probably not going to suffice to get someone housed who wouldn't be otherwise (especially given that landlords tend to be very picky about evidence of income when you're applying to rent a place). $1000 a month may or may not even cover childcare -- the cost of childcare is very dependent on location and on the ages/number of children involved, but there are definitely parts of the US where it's unlikey to even cover the costs for one child. And of course covering the costs of a chronic health condition is in a completely different realm from the quantity of money given in this study.
I'm definitely not against UBI in principle, but in practice I think it makes more sense and is ultimately better for the government to directly fund the important things that it could potentially pay for first. Plenty of European countries (including the one I live in) heavily subsidize all three of these things, and while it's not perfect, it's a marked improvement over the US. UBI seems like an indirect approach to the same ultimate problem that appeals to people's notion of "personal responsibility" and fails to take advantage of the increased power the state has in a state-subsidized system compared to the average citizen purchasing the same services privately.
My concern about UBI is not whether it would have a positive effect on people's lives (it seems pretty clear that it would), but whether it would be a positive enough effect that it would justify the cost — and we must not ignore opportunity costs.
From my perspective, there is very little value in giving money to people who don't need it. For example, if an extra $1000 showed up in my bank account, it's highly likely I wouldn't even notice; it certainly wouldn't materially change my life in any way. But for someone who is struggling, that's money that means their kid can go to the dentist or that they have a little bit of padding before they risk missing rent, but they'll still be struggling afterwards. Instead of giving me $1000 and them $1000, why not give them $2000?
Economists seem to strongly favor redistributive social programs over universal basic income, and I agree. I'm all for basic income — just not universal basic income.
The idea behind UBI is that people like me will vote for it because we want that extra $1000 even if it will not make a lick of difference in our lives. But, as someone who pays a lot more in taxes than I would receive back in such a scheme, I will vote hard against UBI because it achieves too little for too high a price. As someone who grew up in a poor family, I feel pride when I pay my taxes, and I want to see them do the most good possible.
So, I got pretty deep into this when Andrew Yang was running in 2019. So I'll offer up the rational I remember from that period for it being universal.
The primary argument as I recall was stigma. There's social stigma attached to welfare and other social programs. If it's universal, everyone gets it, which would in theory remove or significantly curb the stigma.
For your specific question I quoted above, I think there's a conversation to be had about if $1000 is actually enough (as some of the economists in the survey you linked mention). I think it's definitely not, $12k is not enough for anyone to live on. Which I think is the bar a true UBI should aim for.
As for the other side of the equation (someone who doesn't need the income) the idea is that even though they did get $1000, if they make over a certain amount then they end up paying it right back in taxes. Which seems silly and pointless, except that if your income drops for any reason you don't have to file any paperwork or navigate any government bureaucracy, a check still shows up. Even though I'm doing pretty well for myself, the thought of that kind of safety net would give me tremendous peace of mind.
Oh, this is a big one. My partner grew up in a poor but hard-working and proud family in rural Oregon. His parents didn't apply for any welfare, despite being very eligible.
There are many people who feel that accepting welfare is an implication of their own inability to provide for themselves.
You could say that they should get over it, but people are going to be people.
It might not just be the stigma. Depending on the jurisdiction, welfare payments are not easy money.
I grew up in a poor area of Atlanta and knew a lot of people who were eligible for food stamps, but the only ones who went through the trouble of getting them were people who had absolutely no other option. It wasn't stigma that stopped them (after all, they freely shared with me and the rest of our social group that they were eligible and looking into it), but rather the fact that they had to show up in person to receive the payment at a location that was several miles away from the nearest bus stop, and there was a shit load of paperwork associated with it that took up hours of their time each month — and then once they had the money (which was always way too little, like $15-20 a month), there was very little they were allowed to spend it on.
They found it strictly preferable to just beg for money by the side of the road, even though that's way more stigmatized than receiving government assistance.
$12k a year for every American is already unfathomably expensive. The only way to make that kind of payment feasible (let alone an actual liveable wage!) would be to start excluding some people from receiving payments. I've seen proposals to exclude children and young adults — the very populations with the highest rates of poverty — making it an inherently regressive system. We'd be asking people who depend on minuscule welfare payments just to scrape by each day give that up so that I can receive a payment that won't affect me. It's bonkers.
If tax rates are set so that at some level of income people are paying $1000 more in taxes for every $1000 they get from a UBI, that's then net neutral, right? Then there's never any question of whether you should be getting the money or not, it shows up for everyone, and the people who can afford it pay taxes at rates that mean they're not ending up with extra money they don't need. Doesn't that then resolve your concern? People who don't need it are then not actually coming out ahead, but it removes any need to apply for it when someone's situation changes. It means that those with more income are already excluded just from being taxed.
Consider this alternative: You don't apply for these payments at all. When you do your taxes, they are calculated automatically. If you make a high income (and have few deductions, etc.), your tax payment is higher. If you have a low income (and have big deductions, etc.), your net payment is lower — and can actually range negative.
This means that if you have no income at all and have mouths to feed, you receive the highest possible payment and it is a life-changing amount. If you have a moderate income, you receive a smaller payment, but it will still do you some serious good; it means you can make a real improvements to your life, like quitting your low-paying job to move to a city with a better job market. If you make a high income, nothing really changes for you (except for lower crime rates, more innovation, and all those other good things that come with the alleviation of poverty). If you make a very high income, then you pay more in taxes; that sucks for you, but hey, now there is a stronger economy and more consumers to buy your products.
Negative Income Taxes have some pretty solid logic behind them. They make good sense economically.
I love that idea; the main challenge is that it's a yearly calculation, not a weekly or monthly one, and so the people who are making less would need to have their money sent monthly; but I feel like we're more or less on the same page regarding helping everyone who needs help, and the questions are really about the best process to make that happen.
And to that point, I feel (and it is just a feeling) that higher taxes and giving everyone the same amount of money (but with the more well off having it taken back in taxes) is something that has a better story to it. It's not welfare, it's the Citizens Dividend, available to everyone due to the incredible wealth and productivity of our great nation. And because everyone gets it, it's far more protected from future assholery from selfish people than something that only helped the poor. At least, that's my take.
Just $12,000 per American per year would cost almost $4 trillion dollars. It would double the federal budget overnight unless you slashed all other social welfare programs (which would mean it would only be a moderate increase). And $12,000 isn’t even that much if the premise is that you can survive on that.
UBI is easier to sell to voters: these are the fruits of automation. So, the framing would be: the money isn't being taken from one person and given to another; it's what people are owed by the robots that have (partially) displaced workers.
Determining need is also difficult. The vast majority of American households would definitely feel an extra $1000/month, not just the poor: it'd give middle-class families more breathing room.
It will be a hard sell to voters if it ever becomes enough of a mainstream platform that experts start weighing in en masse and explaining how much it would cost and all the social programs that would have to be scrapped to pay for it.
We can tell voters that automation is paying for it, but that would be a lie. Automation won't actually pay for it unless we can figure out how to effectively tax automation. Meanwhile, corporations will put every lobbying dollar they've got toward making sure that doesn't happen and that middle class taxpayers are left just shuffling money around — paying money in taxes just to receive the same money (minus bureaucratic costs) back.
I own a house, and am not at risk of missing my mortgage but an extra thousand a month would absolutely help me. Medical shit is expensive even with Medicaid covering ton of it. (Caregivers so I can rest are even more expensive. So is someone to clean if we don't have the former)
There's such a a range between living behind on rent, and not noticing that much money a month.
This is why I have a gofundme I suppose. ಠ︵ಠ
It makes sense, then, that people like me should not receive any payment so that people like you can receive a bigger payment.
I just want to be clear, I wouldn't flag as lower income. My partner does, because we're not married, and I'm someone who's glad to pay taxes for schools and roads and all the things. But I don't have a lot of breathing room. At some point doing the math to figure out who will notice that 1k vs who won't is probably not worth it.
Like drug testing welfare recipients, it's less expensive just to give it to everyone.
It costs a lot of money to do drug testing of welfare recipients because, well, drug tests aren't free.
Determining people's income is effectively free because the IRS already does it in order to collect taxes. That will still happen whether universal basic income — or redistributive basic income or any other social program — is implemented or not. We are already paying that cost no matter what, and so we might as well make the best use of it.
Now now, we don't let the IRS share that math because what would H&R Block and TurboTax do then?
But I do understand your point, I think others have made the closet I have to an actual point for me, so I'll bow out of that!
Except. - sorry I had a point after all- not means testing is how people like my partner and I could actually get married. His disability means we need Medicaid on top of Medicare. Because if he had my income, we'd be buried in medical debt. And godsforbid he needs a nursing home for rehab again. I sacrifice that legal status for the peace of mind of never having to avoid medical care because we can't afford it. UBI doesn't just reduce the stigma it levels.the playing field. Even if you'd just have to pay it back in taxes.
The way means testing is done for medicare, medicaid, etc. should be a crime and I'm very sorry you and your partner have been subjected to it. It is a huge amount of added effort that is already done at tax time anyway, and it's done in such a stupid way that it leads to really bad incentive structures (e.g., refusing a higher paid job because the loss in benefits is greater than the increase in income). It's almost like it's designed to crush the human spirit and trap people in poverty.
In my opinion, the way you would want to do basic income is make it part of a progressive tax system. If you make a high income, you pay more taxes. But if you make a low income, you don't just pay no taxes; you receive money as a kind of negative tax. I'm strongly in favor of making this line steeper (i.e., more progressive) and shifting it toward higher income levels (so that the lower middle class are broadly receiving payments instead of paying taxes based on their incomes, assets, and deductions — certainly including things like disabilities and caretaker status).
For all I know, you actually have a higher income than I do (I am a dual citizen of Australia and the US, and my income is less than the national average in Australia and quite a bit less than the national average in the US; I would probably be classed as lower middle class). But I live in a very low COL area, I do not have a mortgage, I do not have a partner with disabilities, etc. As a consequence, I end up putting more money into savings than I spend without even trying. When tax time comes around, this means I have very few deductions and end up paying a much higher tax than I would otherwise. And that's fair. More than fair. I actively want to contribute to a social safety net for you and anyone else experiencing financial strife; without such safety nets, I might not have survived to adulthood.
I just want to do it as effectively as possible, to help as many people as possible as much as possible, and my fear is that UBI would be even more regressive than the systems we have already (economists seem to think so, anyway), would be very hard to fine tune and make iterative improvements on, and would be harder to ditch if it wasn't working like it's supposed to (which I think is highly likely).
For the benefit of those who didn't visit the link, it's a poll of various economists based on this premise:
Many of the responses took issue with the specific number ($13k), others didn't like the idea of getting rid of social security and medicare. Which seems like a very extreme proposal! Many were undecided or cited the need for more data about UBI.
So I don't know if it's a good representation of economists core response to some form of UBI.
Yes, I completely agree, however one of the compelling arguments for UBI is simplicity and low barrier to entry.
As we've seen from existing social welfare programs, many start off with challenging requirements in terms of paperwork and proof, both initial and ongoing. And then from there it gets progressively worse as successive rounds of politicians and adminstrators make the easy argument that we need to make sure people don't take advantage of the systems.
Until you end up with a time consuming, invasive and otherwise daunting system that costs a lot of money to administer. One program infamously did warrentless, suspicionless home searches of welfare recipients.
For many people on the economic and social fringes, the paperwork alone is a big barrier. Pride and the general negative perception of welfare are issues too. From what I've read, recipients also often have to answer questions and meet requirements that would seem inappropriate anywhere outside of the criminal justice system.
Whereas UBI would cost dramatically less to administer and have little to no barrier for recipients.
That said, it seems to me that an income cutoff, even a graduated one, similar to what happened during the pandemic, would be relatively easy to implement and administer.
Universal, adj., "of, affecting, or done by all people in a particular group."
Let's presume the working-age population of the U.S., which was 200 million (in 2020). That's $200 billion per month. The 2020 U.S. GDP was $21.06 trillion. That earmarks 1% of the GDP per month per person for UBI. Would someone explain how UBI cash flow works as a universal income?
Taxes.
But really, 2023 outlays on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs was 3.5 trillion. That's 290 billion per month. So to put the numbers into perspective, this isn't an absurd amount of money by US budget standards. There would need to be higher taxes on people with more money, and some of it would come from redirection from other social services that weren't as needed because of the UBI, but it's not a weird or insurmountable amount of spending.
Not truly universal, then? The wealthy (for some definition of wealth) wouldn't receive income? The top 1% earners (2 million of the working-age population) would be taxed at a higher rate to support UBI?
UBI plans generally involve the wealthy still receiving income. The argument is that the cost of giving some money to people who don't need it is less than the cost of means-testing and other paperwork involved in a system that isn't universal. Means-tested cash payouts cease to be UBI by definition imo.
The wealthy are taxed at a higher rate than the poor in almost every sane tax system, so that bit isn't unique to UBI, though. It's just how governments get money.
Universal, in that everyone receives it. Paid for by taxes, because that's how all government programs are funded unless you like endless deficit spending.
I didn't specify who was being taxed, because we're talking theory rather than specific implementation. Presumably a combination of corporate, individual, and payroll taxes, given that those are the primary taxation revenue streams.
Here’s a link to the full content published by Open Research, in case it’s of interest.
Truth be told, none of this was what I was interested in learning? The sell I had heard was that a UBI program is dramatically cheaper, more efficient, and more equitable than administering several, parallel, means-based benefits programs (eg “you must be at least ‘this poor’, ‘this old’, ‘have this many limbs and no more’, etc.). The initial reports don’t seem to be measuring that as far as I can tell? But I admittedly only skimmed the titles.
Also, quick sidebar, but this quote was very weird:
I assume Altman was referring to a future, “AGI” LLM when he mentioned GPT-7, and the LLM writing this blog post missed that this was a rhetorical device not an actual product?
Cash benefit programs are pretty different, and the research backing them is a lot more supportive. The whole idea behind UBI is the universal part, so it needs to be evaluated separately (like this study did).
Mirror: https://archive.is/xfCMm