Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26893
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Jennifer »

Shem wrote: 30 Dec 2020, 16:26
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 30 Dec 2020, 15:53 More evidence why I believe a UBI is politically inevitable.

My god, they've put heterosexual white dancers out of business
Fortunately, jazz hands and other five-fingered dexterity things are still beyond robots' reach.

For now.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31123
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Warren »

Shem wrote: 30 Dec 2020, 16:26
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 30 Dec 2020, 15:53 More evidence why I believe a UBI is politically inevitable.

My god, they've put heterosexual white dancers out of business
What? Both of them?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25743
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JasonL »

Once they can do jazz hands they can vote in Occupy rallies and it's a short hop to the next autonomous zone being fully autonomous.
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31123
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Warren »

I for one welcome our new dancing robot overlords.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
JD
Posts: 12773
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JD »

Andrew Yang is now running for Mayor of NYC, and he's pushing his UBI idea again; he hasn't mentioned exact numbers lately AFAICT but he's usually tossed around the $1000/month figure. We've done this math before, of course, but there are about 8.4 million residents of NYC: $12000/year * 8.4 million = approximately $100 billion / year. By way of comparison, the entire NYC budget is only $88 billion / year...

Frankly, I don't think Yang has much of a chance - his haste to flee the city during the pandemic and his record of not even bothering to vote in mayoral elections are not good looks for a candidate, and frankly I think he may discover an untapped vein of anti-Asian racism. If he has any chance, it's probably in his FREE MONEY FOR EVERYBODY proposal.
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31123
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Warren »

JD wrote: 14 Jan 2021, 11:15 Andrew Yang is now running for Mayor of NYC, and he's pushing his UBI idea again; he hasn't mentioned exact numbers lately AFAICT but he's usually tossed around the $1000/month figure. We've done this math before, of course, but there are about 8.4 million residents of NYC: $12000/year * 8.4 million = approximately $100 billion / year. By way of comparison, the entire NYC budget is only $88 billion / year...

Frankly, I don't think Yang has much of a chance - his haste to flee the city during the pandemic and his record of not even bothering to vote in mayoral elections are not good looks for a candidate, and frankly I think he may discover an untapped vein of anti-Asian racism. If he has any chance, it's probably in his FREE MONEY FOR EVERYBODY proposal.
The effect on the cost of living in NYC would be huge. It would have the opposite of the intended effect, by exasperating inequality. The rich would be getting super rich soaking up all that free money from the poor. And the poor would be paying $25 for a Big Mac.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21268
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Warren wrote: 14 Jan 2021, 11:32
JD wrote: 14 Jan 2021, 11:15 Andrew Yang is now running for Mayor of NYC, and he's pushing his UBI idea again; he hasn't mentioned exact numbers lately AFAICT but he's usually tossed around the $1000/month figure. We've done this math before, of course, but there are about 8.4 million residents of NYC: $12000/year * 8.4 million = approximately $100 billion / year. By way of comparison, the entire NYC budget is only $88 billion / year...

Frankly, I don't think Yang has much of a chance - his haste to flee the city during the pandemic and his record of not even bothering to vote in mayoral elections are not good looks for a candidate, and frankly I think he may discover an untapped vein of anti-Asian racism. If he has any chance, it's probably in his FREE MONEY FOR EVERYBODY proposal.
The effect on the cost of living in NYC would be huge. It would have the opposite of the intended effect, by exasperating inequality. The rich would be getting super rich soaking up all that free money from the poor. And the poor would be paying $25 for a Big Mac.
Why, Warren! You don't think news that their tenants' income rose by $1k a month would lead to rent increases, do you? How cynical! Next you'll be telling us that's what happened to college tuition when guaranteed student loans first became available!
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31123
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Warren »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 14 Jan 2021, 11:39
Warren wrote: 14 Jan 2021, 11:32
JD wrote: 14 Jan 2021, 11:15 Andrew Yang is now running for Mayor of NYC, and he's pushing his UBI idea again; he hasn't mentioned exact numbers lately AFAICT but he's usually tossed around the $1000/month figure. We've done this math before, of course, but there are about 8.4 million residents of NYC: $12000/year * 8.4 million = approximately $100 billion / year. By way of comparison, the entire NYC budget is only $88 billion / year...

Frankly, I don't think Yang has much of a chance - his haste to flee the city during the pandemic and his record of not even bothering to vote in mayoral elections are not good looks for a candidate, and frankly I think he may discover an untapped vein of anti-Asian racism. If he has any chance, it's probably in his FREE MONEY FOR EVERYBODY proposal.
The effect on the cost of living in NYC would be huge. It would have the opposite of the intended effect, by exasperating inequality. The rich would be getting super rich soaking up all that free money from the poor. And the poor would be paying $25 for a Big Mac.
Why, Warren! You don't think news that their tenants' income rose by $1k a month would lead to rent increases, do you? How cynical! Next you'll be telling us that's what happened to college tuition when guaranteed student loans first became available!
Indeed I will. But first I'll tell you what happened to College Administration size and salary.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
JD
Posts: 12773
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JD »

Now Mayor Garcetti of LA wants to do a $1000/mo UBI.
Garcetti’s $24-million Basic Income Guaranteed program, which will be included in his city budget to be released Tuesday, would provide $1,000 a month to 2,000 Los Angeles families for a year.
...
Already, the Los Angeles City Council has unveiled plans to spend more than $11 million in funds diverted from the Los Angeles Police Department budget on initiatives in South L.A. and the San Fernando Valley on such programs.
I can't help but notice that those numbers don't equal each other. And that's for a program for only 2000 families. I don't know if Garcetti wants to do a UBI by individual or by household, but with about 4 million residents in LA, a per-resident UBI would cost about $48 billion per year. By way of comparison, the entire LA city budget is only about $10.5 billion per year. So even if the average household is four people and you're only paying per household, that's still a program as large as the entire existing LA budget.
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston
User avatar
JD
Posts: 12773
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JD »

The article notes that Garcetti is a member of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, so I went and looked at their web site. They do address two very important questions:
A guaranteed income is meant to supplement, rather than replace, the existing social safety net
and
How would we pay for a guaranteed income?
Budgets are moral documents, and it’s time for the U.S. government to prioritize everyday Americans and their economic dignity. There’s a number of ways to pay for guaranteed income, from a sovereign wealth fund in which citizens benefit from shared national resources like the Alaska Permanent Fund, to bringing tax rates on the wealthiest Americans to their 20th century historical averages.
In other words, handwaving, basically. Call me cynical, but I can't help but notice that whatever the tax rates may be, the Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product are currently, in fact, pretty close to their 20th century average, which suggests that there is not a giant pile of cash out there just waiting to be picked up if we would only return taxes to their historical average.
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31586
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by thoreau »

A guaranteed income is meant to supplement, rather than replace, the existing social safety net
Well, that makes it easy for me then. The only way I would have considered a UBI is if it replaced the vast majority of the safety net.
"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 20398
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: Elev. 5280 ft

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Hugh Akston »

UBI is pure redistribution. It all but assumes raising taxes on high earners well above their current levels, historical averages, or high water marks.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Well if they're blaming libertarians again then things must be going back to normal." ~dbcooper
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25743
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JasonL »

The funding strategy for UBI would have to be broad tax base - if it's ongoing forever expenditures it requires broad base to support. That means something like VAT or payroll tax or middle of the distribution income tax. If you just redesign it as a wage support anti poverty measure like negative income tax or EITC expansion the taxation is a lot more clear. Leaving it universal puts people paying VAT in the middle of the distribution paying out of their left pocket and into their right.
User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 20398
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: Elev. 5280 ft

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Hugh Akston »

JasonL wrote: 20 Apr 2021, 13:46 The funding strategy for UBI would have to be broad tax base - if it's ongoing forever expenditures it requires broad base to support. That means something like VAT or payroll tax or middle of the distribution income tax. If you just redesign it as a wage support anti poverty measure like negative income tax or EITC expansion the taxation is a lot more clear. Leaving it universal puts people paying VAT in the middle of the distribution paying out of their left pocket and into their right.
Well yeah, there's going to be some people receiving $1,000/mo in benefits and paying $1,000/mo in taxes. Just like there will be people receiving $1,000/mo and paying $1,001/mo. That's a feature of the system.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Well if they're blaming libertarians again then things must be going back to normal." ~dbcooper
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25743
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JasonL »

Hugh Akston wrote: 20 Apr 2021, 13:56
JasonL wrote: 20 Apr 2021, 13:46 The funding strategy for UBI would have to be broad tax base - if it's ongoing forever expenditures it requires broad base to support. That means something like VAT or payroll tax or middle of the distribution income tax. If you just redesign it as a wage support anti poverty measure like negative income tax or EITC expansion the taxation is a lot more clear. Leaving it universal puts people paying VAT in the middle of the distribution paying out of their left pocket and into their right.
Well yeah, there's going to be some people receiving $1,000/mo in benefits and paying $1,000/mo in taxes. Just like there will be people receiving $1,000/mo and paying $1,001/mo. That's a feature of the system.
Key point - that's going to be a lot of people. I think the intuitions about this perceive a skewed distribution weighted at the top funding noticeable net gains up through the middle. Not going to work that way. Working from a broad base, most people will be net losers.
User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 20398
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: Elev. 5280 ft

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Hugh Akston »

JasonL wrote: 20 Apr 2021, 14:49
Hugh Akston wrote: 20 Apr 2021, 13:56
JasonL wrote: 20 Apr 2021, 13:46 The funding strategy for UBI would have to be broad tax base - if it's ongoing forever expenditures it requires broad base to support. That means something like VAT or payroll tax or middle of the distribution income tax. If you just redesign it as a wage support anti poverty measure like negative income tax or EITC expansion the taxation is a lot more clear. Leaving it universal puts people paying VAT in the middle of the distribution paying out of their left pocket and into their right.
Well yeah, there's going to be some people receiving $1,000/mo in benefits and paying $1,000/mo in taxes. Just like there will be people receiving $1,000/mo and paying $1,001/mo. That's a feature of the system.
Key point - that's going to be a lot of people. I think the intuitions about this perceive a skewed distribution weighted at the top funding noticeable net gains up through the middle. Not going to work that way. Working from a broad base, most people will be net losers.
And is your point an intuition, or do you have numbers to support it?
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Well if they're blaming libertarians again then things must be going back to normal." ~dbcooper
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21268
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Most taxpayers are net losers, anyway. A UBI would either just be more losing or maybe force less losing elsewhere.
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15838
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Eric the .5b »

JD wrote: 20 Apr 2021, 13:04
How would we pay for a guaranteed income?
Budgets are moral documents, and it’s time for the U.S. government to prioritize everyday Americans and their economic dignity. There’s a number of ways to pay for guaranteed income, from a sovereign wealth fund in which citizens benefit from shared national resources like the Alaska Permanent Fund, to bringing tax rates on the wealthiest Americans to their 20th century historical averages.
In other words, handwaving, basically. Call me cynical, but I can't help but notice that whatever the tax rates may be, the Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product are currently, in fact, pretty close to their 20th century average, which suggests that there is not a giant pile of cash out there just waiting to be picked up if we would only return taxes to their historical average.
It's a trick in the rhetoric. It's bringing the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans to their averages, not the overall. So, presumably bringing the total haul from everybody above the average.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25743
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JasonL »

Hugh Akston wrote: 20 Apr 2021, 15:00
JasonL wrote: 20 Apr 2021, 14:49
Hugh Akston wrote: 20 Apr 2021, 13:56
JasonL wrote: 20 Apr 2021, 13:46 The funding strategy for UBI would have to be broad tax base - if it's ongoing forever expenditures it requires broad base to support. That means something like VAT or payroll tax or middle of the distribution income tax. If you just redesign it as a wage support anti poverty measure like negative income tax or EITC expansion the taxation is a lot more clear. Leaving it universal puts people paying VAT in the middle of the distribution paying out of their left pocket and into their right.
Well yeah, there's going to be some people receiving $1,000/mo in benefits and paying $1,000/mo in taxes. Just like there will be people receiving $1,000/mo and paying $1,001/mo. That's a feature of the system.
Key point - that's going to be a lot of people. I think the intuitions about this perceive a skewed distribution weighted at the top funding noticeable net gains up through the middle. Not going to work that way. Working from a broad base, most people will be net losers.
And is your point an intuition, or do you have numbers to support it?
No universal social benefit program on earth is / can be funding on the backs of high earners primarily. You don't generate enough money taxing a few people at higher rates. Healthcare works like this as do all of the supplemental programs the scandinavian states engage in. By analogy - universal healthcare is funded by VAT and broad income or payroll taxes on all workers. People paying these taxes do get the healthcare benefit, but they are also paying very high taxes to get it. The universality requirement means low incomes are receiving transfers but not most people. The effect for middle incomes of universal healthcare for example is to convert discretionary income into a healthcare benefit, not for rich people to pay for your healthcare. I think people perceive UBI being everyone except rich people getting a transfer but the math almost can't work that way.

Yang's proposal was the most realistically funded but it was still far short. The law of the land is broad taxes raise lots of recurring money, narrow redistributive ones don't.

https://taxfoundation.org/andrew-yang-v ... ic-income/
User avatar
JD
Posts: 12773
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JD »

JasonL wrote: 21 Apr 2021, 13:53 The universality requirement means low incomes are receiving transfers but not most people. The effect for middle incomes of universal healthcare for example is to convert discretionary income into a healthcare benefit, not for rich people to pay for your healthcare. I think people perceive UBI being everyone except rich people getting a transfer but the math almost can't work that way.
I think the problem here is a political one: if every month you get a check from the government, for which you had to do absolutely nothing except breathe, people will say, "Yay, free money!" (look at how people respond to income tax refunds) and it will become politically untouchable. Never mind that these people paid for the checks with their own taxes, and in many cases are net losers on the deal; if you propose doing away with the benefit you'll have a mob with torches and pitchforks at your door. Even if you propose that you'll lower taxes and people will be net winners, that's a level of sophistication people won't get: it will be all YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY POOR OLD GRANDMA'S MONEY THAT SHE WORKED HARD FOR ALL HER LIFE etc.
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25743
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JasonL »

I agree. I much prefer EITC expansion or some other form of targeted attenuating wage supports as an anti poverty program. UBI as a universal thing sounds worse to me every time I think about it.

Like Yang's program would run 2.8T every year forever. The whole defense budget is like 721B.
User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 20398
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: Elev. 5280 ft

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Hugh Akston »

A Denver group is going to test UBI for hobros, which seems like the best place to start.
The Denver Basic Income Project wants to find out. In conjunction with the University of Denver’s Center for Housing and Homelessness research, the organization will study the effects of giving cash to people experiencing homelessness. Participants in the study will be split into three groups: One group will receive $1,000 per month, another will receive $6,500 up front and $500 every month afterward, and the third group, the control group, and will receive $50 per month. A total of 820 people will participate. Researchers from the University of Denver want to learn more about the differences between receiving more money upfront versus receiving money throughout the year, hence the different groups.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Well if they're blaming libertarians again then things must be going back to normal." ~dbcooper
Post Reply