Many economists already argue that the war on poverty is more like war on poor, and that giving housing to the homeless and unconditional income to the poor actually saves a lot more than putting them on welfare with a view to eventually getting them into workforce. Because of extenuating circumstances too complex to be simply explained succinctly, many people could not find jobs as easily and going on the job market for so long and while under welfare puts more financial and mental strain on those individuals. It costs more to put people on welfare, as you have bureaucracies to pay as well, than to simply give the poor unconditional cash transfers and housing. We’re also in an increasingly automated world where jobs are becoming less common so universal basic income is a must.
I’m convinced that UBI would make the world significantly better for everyone. I’m sure it wouldn’t outright solve problems like homelessness or poverty - financial literacy is still a thing, and people still fuck up or end up in bad situations that they can’t control - but al of these problems would be made significantly less impactful.
I also understand why the ruling classes of the world will never allow it to happen without a fight. If you aren’t dependent on your job… Then why stay in a job with poor conditions? Why stay working for a company that doesn’t care about you? Why tolerate poor pay? Suddenly workers have 1000x more bargaining power in every discussion with their employer… And frankly a lot of people would want to work part time, which is going through start to impact on company’s ability to employ enough staff at all.
Obviously they have a way out - providing employees with a better quality of life, benefits, good pay, work life balance, etc… but all that costs money and they hate that.
The one thing that makes this difficult is that if you give someone money unconditionally, it has to go to everyone universally. You can’t just give it to people below a certain income level.
If you have an income level limit to determine who will get it, people will decide against working if it puts them over the limit where they lose the provided income, and people working and getting just above that limit will resent having to work 40 hours a week to make just a little bit more than people who don’t work at all.
But then if you provide everyone with money universally, how will that affect inflation? If everyone gets $1000 every month, stores know they can increase prices, corporate landlords know they can increase rents and get a piece of the pie, and eventually that $1000 is basically useless.
Milton Friedman, a conservative economist from the 20th century, advocated for a negative income tax that worked similarly to a normal income tax. If you made $0 a year and filed a tax return, the government would give you let’s say the standard deduction (currently ~13k). As you increased your income, for every two dollars (could make this 3 or 4 too), you’d lose $1 of that negative income tax, so it would never be bad to make more money.
For a 2:1 ratio you’d have to make 26k+ to get no money. Some number examples:
Normal income + negative income tax = total income
$0 + $13,000 = $13,000
$6,500 + $9,750 = $16,250
$13,000 + $6,500 = $19,500
$19,500 + $3,250 = $22,750
$26,000 + $0 = $26,000
Making more money is never bad, and it still gets money to people who need it most with essentially no bureaucratic overhead.
I’m a socialist who disagrees with the vast majority of the shit Milton Friedman spewed, but negative income tax wasn’t a terrible idea, I might even go as far to say it’s good (as long as the amount is high enough).
To be fair, some people argue instead of universal basic utility. Having free housing and basic utilities to mitigate concerns of increasing inflation and rent. Many experts already advocate to treat housing as basic rights like education and food.
I don’t see either UBI or UBU being implemented in the near to medium term. It would only be practical in the further future when AI becomes advanced enough that many jobs have been taken over by it, displacing many human workers.
Many economists already argue that the war on poverty is more like war on poor, and that giving housing to the homeless and unconditional income to the poor actually saves a lot more than putting them on welfare with a view to eventually getting them into workforce. Because of extenuating circumstances too complex to be simply explained succinctly, many people could not find jobs as easily and going on the job market for so long and while under welfare puts more financial and mental strain on those individuals. It costs more to put people on welfare, as you have bureaucracies to pay as well, than to simply give the poor unconditional cash transfers and housing. We’re also in an increasingly automated world where jobs are becoming less common so universal basic income is a must.
I’m convinced that UBI would make the world significantly better for everyone. I’m sure it wouldn’t outright solve problems like homelessness or poverty - financial literacy is still a thing, and people still fuck up or end up in bad situations that they can’t control - but al of these problems would be made significantly less impactful.
I also understand why the ruling classes of the world will never allow it to happen without a fight. If you aren’t dependent on your job… Then why stay in a job with poor conditions? Why stay working for a company that doesn’t care about you? Why tolerate poor pay? Suddenly workers have 1000x more bargaining power in every discussion with their employer… And frankly a lot of people would want to work part time, which is going through start to impact on company’s ability to employ enough staff at all.
Obviously they have a way out - providing employees with a better quality of life, benefits, good pay, work life balance, etc… but all that costs money and they hate that.
I wish [email protected] were more active. I’d be interested to follow any UBI pilot projects or related news.
The one thing that makes this difficult is that if you give someone money unconditionally, it has to go to everyone universally. You can’t just give it to people below a certain income level.
If you have an income level limit to determine who will get it, people will decide against working if it puts them over the limit where they lose the provided income, and people working and getting just above that limit will resent having to work 40 hours a week to make just a little bit more than people who don’t work at all.
But then if you provide everyone with money universally, how will that affect inflation? If everyone gets $1000 every month, stores know they can increase prices, corporate landlords know they can increase rents and get a piece of the pie, and eventually that $1000 is basically useless.
Milton Friedman, a conservative economist from the 20th century, advocated for a negative income tax that worked similarly to a normal income tax. If you made $0 a year and filed a tax return, the government would give you let’s say the standard deduction (currently ~13k). As you increased your income, for every two dollars (could make this 3 or 4 too), you’d lose $1 of that negative income tax, so it would never be bad to make more money.
For a 2:1 ratio you’d have to make 26k+ to get no money. Some number examples:
Normal income + negative income tax = total income
$0 + $13,000 = $13,000
$6,500 + $9,750 = $16,250
$13,000 + $6,500 = $19,500
$19,500 + $3,250 = $22,750
$26,000 + $0 = $26,000
Making more money is never bad, and it still gets money to people who need it most with essentially no bureaucratic overhead.
I’m a socialist who disagrees with the vast majority of the shit Milton Friedman spewed, but negative income tax wasn’t a terrible idea, I might even go as far to say it’s good (as long as the amount is high enough).
To be fair, some people argue instead of universal basic utility. Having free housing and basic utilities to mitigate concerns of increasing inflation and rent. Many experts already advocate to treat housing as basic rights like education and food.
I don’t see either UBI or UBU being implemented in the near to medium term. It would only be practical in the further future when AI becomes advanced enough that many jobs have been taken over by it, displacing many human workers.
Can’t get beef if the cows gotta pay up front for grass.