Study Details 'Transformative' Results From LA Guaranteed Basic Income Program (laist.com) 297
The results of Los Angeles' 12-month guaranteed income pilot program show that it was "overwhelmingly beneficial (source may be paywalled; alternative source)," reports the Los Angeles Times. The program, which involved giving L.A.'s poorest families cash assistance of $1,000 a month with no strings attached, significantly improved participants' financial stability, job opportunities, and overall well-being. From the report: The Basic Income Guaranteed: Los Angeles Economic Assistance Pilot, or BIG:LEAP, disbursed $38.4 million in city funds to 3,200 residents who were pregnant or had at least one child, lived at or below the federal poverty level and experienced hardship related to COVID-19. Participants were randomly selected from about 50,000 applicants and received the payments for 12 months starting in 2022. The city paid researchers $3.9 million to help design the trial and survey participants throughout about their experiences.
[Dr. Amy Castro, co-founder of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Guaranteed Income Research] and her colleagues partnered with researchers at UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health to compare the experiences of participants in L.A.'s randomized control trial -- the country's first large-scale guaranteed-income pilot using public funds -- with those of nearly 5,000 people who didn't receive the unconditional cash. Researchers found that participants reported a meaningful increase in savings and were more likely to be able to cover a $400 emergency during and after the program. Guaranteed-income recipients also were more likely to secure full-time or part-time employment, or to be looking for work, rather than being unemployed and not looking for work, the study found.
In a city with sky-high rents, participants reported that the guaranteed income functioned as "a preventative measure against homelessness," according to the report, helping them offset rental costs and serving as a buffer while they waited for other housing support. It also prevented or reduced the incidence of intimate partner violence, the analysis found, by making it possible for people and their children to leave and find other housing. Intimate partner violence is an intractable social challenge, Castro said, so to see improvements with just 12 months of funding is a "pretty extraordinary change." People who had struggled to maintain their health because of inflexible or erratic work schedules and lack of child care reported that the guaranteed income provided the safety net they needed to maintain healthier behaviors, the report said. They reported sleeping better, exercising more, resuming necessary medications and seeking mental health therapy for themselves and their children. Compared with those who didn't receive cash, guaranteed income recipients were more likely to enroll their kids in sports and clubs during and after the pilot.
[Dr. Amy Castro, co-founder of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Guaranteed Income Research] and her colleagues partnered with researchers at UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health to compare the experiences of participants in L.A.'s randomized control trial -- the country's first large-scale guaranteed-income pilot using public funds -- with those of nearly 5,000 people who didn't receive the unconditional cash. Researchers found that participants reported a meaningful increase in savings and were more likely to be able to cover a $400 emergency during and after the program. Guaranteed-income recipients also were more likely to secure full-time or part-time employment, or to be looking for work, rather than being unemployed and not looking for work, the study found.
In a city with sky-high rents, participants reported that the guaranteed income functioned as "a preventative measure against homelessness," according to the report, helping them offset rental costs and serving as a buffer while they waited for other housing support. It also prevented or reduced the incidence of intimate partner violence, the analysis found, by making it possible for people and their children to leave and find other housing. Intimate partner violence is an intractable social challenge, Castro said, so to see improvements with just 12 months of funding is a "pretty extraordinary change." People who had struggled to maintain their health because of inflexible or erratic work schedules and lack of child care reported that the guaranteed income provided the safety net they needed to maintain healthier behaviors, the report said. They reported sleeping better, exercising more, resuming necessary medications and seeking mental health therapy for themselves and their children. Compared with those who didn't receive cash, guaranteed income recipients were more likely to enroll their kids in sports and clubs during and after the pilot.
I'll take a grain of salt, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
When the person is "co-founder of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Guaranteed Income Research" would you really believe they would publish critical research that would lead to the abolition of the center they fought so hard to create?
Re:I'll take a grain of salt, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is probably comes as a surprise to the libertarians who do not want to believe this, but most people operate with a code of ethics and do not intentionally sway results to what they want
Libertarians (big and little 'L'), on the other hand can usually be expected to act on their own self interest
The sad thing is that humanity has managed to thrive by acting with selflessness, not selfishness, most people call it Altruism, but the selfish bastard call it being a sucker
I am still waiting for the libertarians to shove off to their isolated paradise, but it never really seems to work out
Re:I'll take a grain of salt, please. (Score:5, Interesting)
Libertarians (big and little 'L'), on the other hand can usually be expected to act on their own self interest
Exactly, enlightened self-interest is what has lifted the world out of poverty over the last 200 or so years. The self interest motive of improving your own situation in capitalism, by finding ways to provide value to others that they'll in turnb voluntarily trade their own time and money for, is how people will actually help each other. Without this motive, people will do just what they need to do, which is why the results of communism are starvation.
I am still waiting for the libertarians to shove off to their isolated paradise, but it never really seems to work out
We're working on it, we chose New Hampshire to get it started, and by many measures it's working out.
If you're saying that libertarians wouldn't want a UBI, that's mixed, but there is a libertarian case for UBI [libertarianism.org]. Both libertarian economists Friedman and Hayek supported this.
Re: I'll take a grain of salt, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
Self-interest has done nothing for society. That is not, and never has been, where the gains lie. Basically, you're quoting stagnant ideas that have been superceded.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't even say stagnant ideas. More like a follower of revisionist history.
Re: (Score:3)
Self-interest has done nothing for society.
I think that's an overstatement, but it's absolutely true that we can't run only on self-interest. If we do that, we have to depend on the wealthy understanding that they depend on the system and have to maintain it. As the majority of them got their wealth through inheritance, and the majority of the remainder through illicit dealings and graft, we know that's not how anything works.
Self-interest is one of the drivers of technology. It just can't be allowed to call all of the shots.
Re:I'll take a grain of salt, please. (Score:5, Interesting)
>Exactly, enlightened self-interest is what has lifted the world out of poverty over the last 200 or so years. The self interest motive of improving your own situation in capitalism, by finding ways to provide value to others that they'll in turnb voluntarily trade their own time and money for, is how people will actually help each other. Without this motive, people will do just what they need to do, which is why the results of communism are starvation
You might be surprised to learn that the father of capitalism would disagree with you. Nitpicks, caveats, exceptions, but enough that you're exactly wrong by aggregate.
Re: I'll take a grain of salt, please. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: I'll take a grain of salt, please. (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporations don't have brains, hearts, minds, souls, or any of that shit. They are specifically and only legal shields for humans to hide behind while they take antisocial actions, most especially investing in things that are harmful to others. The ONLY thing corporations are is tools. First and foremost, equally tools to deceive, and tools to avoid responsibility.
The whole idea of pretending that they are people and giving them rights was always morally bankrupt, and intended specifically to permit malicious acts.
Re: I'll take a grain of salt, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
$1000/mo in LA might get you food. Certainly not housing. Getting a 12k/yr "raise" above your 3 part time jobs (so they don't have to give benefits) gives you wiggle room to take a day off when you're sick or just be slightly less stressed and maybe you're more productive at work. Nobody who got this money quit any jobs or bought a Bentley. Also, since when do cities have to ask Congress for money? Aren't you all for state rights..? Or is that only the rights you agree with.
Me neither (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a libertarian, but I see this as a way to bypass Congress and create a new welfare state. Hand me a bunch of money and of course I'm going to be better off. My kids, meanwhile, will learn they don't have to contribute to society and can just live off of other people's money.
Me neither. I'll be in favor of UBI if it works.
I understand the arguments on both sides, each side is presented passionately and with rhetoric used to convince you that their side is right.
None of which matters. Give me a set of studies based on science that indicate that UBI is beneficial, using a measure of "benefit" that makes sense and can be used as a standard of comparison.
For example, if $1000/mo UBI leads to a reduction in crime, and if that reduction ultimately saves $500/mo in related services (police, courts, jail, psych help, &c) then that's a very good start. If that same UBI can further put $200/mo reduction in costs to the public (medical services to the poor, better grades for the kids), and maybe other aspects that in total come out to *more* than $1000/mo of benefit to society, then I'm all for it.
From an economics point of view, if you study economics and not only study "what is" but also the underpinnings of "why is" and "how things came about" in economics, you realize that we're potentially headed for a systemic crisis. If consumption is not infinite (ie - on average people show no incentive to consume more than a specified comfort level) and productive efficiency gets so high that all necessary productivity can be generated by fewer people than are at their comfort level, then the capitalism model we currently use breaks down. By definition some portion of the population will be out of work, and how will those people survive?
Or to put it more simply, imagine a factory that employs 100,000 people and produces everything anyone would want in the entire US. What do you do with all the unemployed people?
There are arguments that this point is imminent, and arguments against. And lots of people argue that "it's never happened in the past, so it won't happen now".
And yet... full self driving is poised to put 5 million people out of work (not just drivers, but supporting roles such as all the diners and gas stations and motels on the highways), drone delivery might put another 2 million out of work, AI is likely to put 2 million copy editors out of work (and perhaps graphics designers, and videographers), and if Tesla ever gets Optimus to work then that will put most manual laborers out of work.
UBI might, and I say *might* be one way to modify the current capitalistic system to accommodate the unemployed.
I might take that for a reason to have UBI as well.
But only if we have confirmed studies that show it'll work.
Re: Me neither (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be in favor of UBI if it works.
Obviously not. All of the evidence we have from actual experiments suggests that UBI works incredibly well, but you're actively ignoring all of that.
But only if we have confirmed studies that show it'll work.
We have countless studies. There's even one referenced at the top of this page. We don't need to speculate. We have a ton of experimental evidence. UBI works. To deny that simple fact is to deny objective reality.
AI is likely to put 2 million copy editors out of work
Not in this universe. You could be forgiven for believing that in early 2023, but you'd need to be delusional to believe that now.
if Tesla ever gets Optimus to work
I wouldn't be
Re:Me neither (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never seen a large UBI study, I'd like to see your sources. Before linking think about what the U in UBI stands for. All I've ever seen is small UBI studies, or larger studies where the U was dropped in some way to produce more of a BI study. Having said that I like the idea of a UBI replacing traditional means tested handouts, but I find 'studies' like this one claiming to test UBI disingenuous at best.
Re: I'll take a grain of salt, please. (Score:2)
Except that doesn't happen in practice. When theory differs from practice, it is what happens that matters, not what you expect to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
You've obviously never met any researchers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK when the government increased the maximum rent assistance for poor people living in private rents it had the practically overnight effect of raising the price floor of every rented property in the country. If the government was willing to chip in £X per month, well your 1-bedroom crap flat in the worst area might as well be £X with no discount. Because if the people who lived there were all receiving government assistance then might as well get the maximum. Anyone who could afford it w
Re:I hope guaranteed income happens... (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with housing in London is quite simply literal rent-seeking. 14 years or Tory lack-of-leadership has let crooks profiteer from society's most vulnerable. London rents are not particularly closely correlated with the overall economy. That's on of many reasons why sensible economists see rent-seeking as a bad thing, whether it's literal or metaphorical.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah well believe it or not the city of LA can't print money. The closest they get is selling bonds.
Besides why don't we start purging the suppliers who bilk the government?
I already know but it's weird that one class of citizen is allowed to rob the country and another we don't have cash to feed, shelter, or educate.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: I hope guaranteed income happens... (Score:4, Insightful)
We can and should use that.
Print money to pay UBI. Increase the amount to match inflation. It devalues cash hoards. Right now the wealthy have unprecedented amounts of actual cash money. Corporations, too. Yes, they mostly collect liquidable assets but they are also sitting on uninvested money. We need that money to circulate or it can't employ people.
Re:I hope guaranteed income happens... (Score:4, Informative)
Increasing the supply of money doesn't necessarily cause inflation because inflation is influenced by a variety of factors, not just the money supply. Here are some key reasons why an increase in the money supply may not lead to inflation:
1. Velocity of Money
The velocity of money, or the rate at which money changes hands, plays a critical role in determining inflation. If the velocity of money decreases, even with an increase in the money supply, the overall impact on inflation can be muted. For instance, during economic uncertainty, people and businesses may hoard money instead of spending it, which can counteract the inflationary pressure of an increased money supply.
2. Productive Capacity
If the economy has unused productive capacity or is operating below its potential output, an increase in the money supply can lead to higher production rather than higher prices. This is often the case in a recession where there are idle resources (e.g., labor, capital) that can be brought into productive use without driving up prices.
3. Expectations
Inflation expectations influence actual inflation. If people believe that an increase in the money supply will not lead to higher inflation, they may not adjust their behavior in ways that drive prices up. For example, if wage demands and price-setting behavior do not change, the additional money may not translate into higher prices.
4. Global Economy
In a globalized economy, an increase in the domestic money supply can be absorbed by increased imports, which can dampen inflationary pressures. For instance, if the extra money is spent on foreign goods and services, this can alleviate demand-side pressures on domestic prices.
5. Monetary Policy Tools
Central banks have various tools at their disposal to manage the effects of an increased money supply. They can sterilize the money supply increase through open market operations, adjust interest rates, or use other monetary policy instruments to mitigate inflationary pressures.
6. Liquidity Traps
In a liquidity trap, where interest rates are already near zero and savings rates are high, increases in the money supply may not translate into increased spending. People may prefer to hold onto cash rather than spend or invest it, which reduces the potential for inflation.
7. Demand-Side Factors
Inflation is fundamentally driven by the balance of supply and demand. If demand remains weak or supply increases to meet the new demand, inflation may not occur. Factors such as technological advancements, increased productivity, or supply chain improvements can offset the inflationary impact of increased money supply.
8. Credit Markets
The effect of an increased money supply also depends on the state of credit markets. If banks are unwilling to lend, or if consumers and businesses are unwilling to borrow, the additional money may not enter circulation effectively, thus not leading to inflation.
Conclusion
While increasing the money supply can theoretically lead to inflation if too much money chases too few goods, the real-world outcome depends on a complex interplay of factors, including economic conditions, expectations, global influences, and monetary policy responses. Hence, increasing the money supply does not automatically or inevitably cause inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
Confirmation Bias is a pretty good $10 word for that circumstance.
Re: I'll take a grain of salt, please. (Score:2)
It is also not representative of UBI in any way, you basically give a few thousand people some money and then we are surprised to see some of them use the money and are slightly elevated from their previous position relative to others who didnâ(TM)t get it. Okay, now here is the ethical dilemma: what happens if you take that money away. Will they do better in the next 12 months or now that their lifestyle is elevated, crash harder into debt as they no longer have the funds to maintain their lifestyle?
B
I'm different (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm quite unusual, in that I'm a libertarian who supports a UBI/BIG. My justifications for it are quite different than the liberal ones. Before covid, I recommended something around $500/person per month, while removing most other welfare benefits. These days, it'd be a bit higher, but I don't really have a good figure right now. No, living alone is not a privilege that you should have if you're dependent upon it. I also had recommendations on how to transform the income tax system to account for it - go much more towards a flat tax, which would actually cost the extremely wealthy more in taxes, but the middle class types would stay mostly around the same.
My justifications:
1. Welfare often has "cliffs" where you are worse off working and earning more money. This encourages people to stay on welfare, which is bad.
2. Welfare tends to come with all sorts of conditions - which cost money to implement and administer. Just paying everybody a UBI ends up being drastically simpler (don't fire 100% of the auditors, mind you).
3. It's cheaper than prison, current welfare systems (pure cash is rated at helping people better than restricted use benefits), having homeless around etc...
4. Less paperwork - lose your job, still have UBI without having to apply and wait.
5. Gives workers more power - they can quit much easier if their workplace is "bad".
Every study I've seen has shown positive results for the people getting it, without all that much less work being done. Mostly less child labor, parents taking more time off to be with kids, more education, all of which I don't consider negative. The question is whether or not it is worth it.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss different permutations, though I have many ideas about changing government, I'm sticking mostly to UBI stuff here.
Re: (Score:2)
I shudder to think that you might not actually be a libertarian, did somebody assign you as that at birth?
Re: (Score:3)
To explain this further, I'm more of a philosophical libertarian, less a member of the current libertarian party. The current libertarian party is infested with Randians, Ayn Rand actually detested libertarians in her day, and vice versa.
I've also been described as a practical minarchist. As bad of a fit as the current libertarian party is, it's still closer than the republicans or the democracts. I like to say that I disagree with each of them 50% of the time, and both of them 50% of the time.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I mostly think that UBI is inevitable because of the improvements in robotics. There are a LOT of people out there who really can't do any job more complex than walk a security guard patrol or wash dishes. Previously when the farmer bought a tractor the farmhand went to work in the buggy whip factory. When that closed down they worked at the car manufacturer. When that factory closed they could work at Walmart. Now there are robots that can stock shelves, walk a security patrol, make and serve espresso
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it won't scale up no matter what anyone else tells you [...] All these 'pilot programs' they keep staging don't mean anything.
So you think experimental evidence means nothing? Okay...
The Rich will stage an armed rebellion
Given the whole of human history, I would strongly recommend that the rich not attempt armed rebellion. The poor significantly outnumber the rich, if you didn't know. It will end badly for them, no matter who starts it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I wrote above, hungry people in large numbers pick up torches and pitchforks. The rich will have to fund UBI or they're going to commit suicide as a class.
Re: (Score:2)
Hungry people in large numbers will pick up torches and pitchforks, the ownership class in the West is going to have to cough up for UBI just out of basic self-preservation.
One possible way to fund a gradual UBI would be to create a sort of Alaskan PFD system.
Something like tax capital gains, dividends, "industry", something, like 1%/year. This goes into a fund like a 401k or whatever, but country-sized. Follow the Alaskan/other systems of averaging things out, protecting the fund core from losses and inflation, etc...
Once the money reaches the point of being able to pay a dividend to everybody who would qualify around $100/year, start paying it out. Once it reaches around
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you frame the fundamental point of existence as an eternal search for profit. That's not what it's for though, and in fact that is missing the point entirely.
Re: I'm different (Score:2)
Some people have been a drain on the system as long as there have been people and economic systems. King Charles is an example, albeit an extreme one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When all the low-skill low-education jobs have been automated where are dumb people going to be able to do something productive? Seriously, what are you going to do with people who aren't smart enough to do anything more complex than milk cows or drive a truck? And don't forget, there are a **LOT** more of them than there are of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose UBI works.
It does. At least, that's what all the evidence suggests.
Does this then cement the fact that some people are a drain on the system?
The two things are completely unrelated. That said, it's obvious that some people are a drain on the system. Billionaires, for example, and hedge fund managers.
Is this an optimization?
What does that mean to you?
The goal is to "optimize" the well-being of everyone. UBI is an important step towards an equitable post-scarcity future.
Re: (Score:2)
post-scarcity future.
Ah, there is the glitch in your thinking. You think labor is the limiting factor for our society. Sorry, but it is raw materials a lot of the time. Did you learn the labor theory of economics or something? You know that wasn't even taken seriously even back in the 1870s.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Flat taxes are regressive. If you want the rich and powerful to pay their fair share, you don't want a flat tax.
Didn't read the Op, did you? (Score:2)
Graph the effective tax rate against income if you give everybody $6k (or $12k for the generous) first, untaxed, before charging 30% on earnings.
Earning $0: Income $6k, Tax: $0, Rate: 0%, Altrate: -infinity.
Earning $5k: Income $11k, Tax $1.5k: 14%, altrate: -90%
Earning $10k: Income $16k, Tax $3k, 19%, altrate: -30%
Earning $15k: Income $21k, Tax $4.5k, 21%, altrate: -10%
Earning $20k: Income $26k, Tax $6k, 23%, altrate: 0% (They're finally paying taxes equal to the UBI...)
Earning $25k: Income $31k, Tax $7.5k
Re: (Score:2)
Good catch on it being "mostly flat", not actually flat. I argue that if you include the UBI into the equation like a huge refundable credit, it actually becomes pretty progressive.
And I can't say about getting rid of "all" the tax loopholes but rewriting the capital gains preferred rates would go a long way towards making the rich and powerful pay their share.
Re: (Score:2)
You are spot on there. Plus, I read statistics about San Francisco spending $100,000 a year per homeless person. If one gives them a fraction of that as a UBI, they might be able to find housing somewhere, get a stable place for them to put their belongings, find work, and become a taxpaying member of society again.
Prisons as well. A UBI is a lot cheaper than even a minimum security camp.
Overall, it is a plus, regardless of where one stands, and it can mean saving money overall.
Re: (Score:2)
You are spot on there. Plus, I read statistics about San Francisco spending $100,000 a year per homeless person. If one gives them a fraction of that as a UBI, they might be able to find housing somewhere ...
I really doubt that but I do think an actual UBI is worth a shot, where everyone, not means tested as this project did it, gets it and we get rid of means tested welfare at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
I think UBI would likely be an improvement even though I think it's not really right to redistribute wealth. That said the "removing most other welfare benefits" is likely going to be the part where it all falls down. People don't want to give up the handout they're already getting.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like I get to pull out the "justifications for cold hearted bastards" list.
Okay, remember that dissatisfied starving poor people are not only unseemly, unsanitary, unsightly, smelly, and all that, but "French revolution" is a possibility, historically shown. So aren't communist revolutions.
As I'm kind of attached to my head, and having to live in a gated community with well paid guards is expensive, and it's just plain cheaper to bribe the poor people than it is to put them in prison on average, we g
Re: (Score:2)
Please note that I said "I think UBI would likely be an improvement" and I do think that it's a pragmatic thing to do even if it's morally questionable to legitimize the use of force to take from some and give to others. I thought that was clear but maybe it was not.
So here it is: I think state forced welfare is wrong from a moral standpoint but it is also probably required to maintain a semblance of stability, and UBI seems to be a simple and fair way to do this immoral thing. So of all the bad options UBI
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to see a study on basic income. So far all the studies attest to different types of welfare. The closest study on basic income was COVID and that led to inflation.
So here we have a study that gives free money to people. Not Basic income.
UBI has a financing problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to see a study on basic income
That's because you're actively avoiding them.
The closest study on basic income was COVID and that led to inflation.
False. The so-called inflation was caused by two things: Supply chain disruption and price gouging.
Re: (Score:2)
A third thing, because I don't really believe that price gouging is a thing: The feds dumping literal trillions of extra dollars into the economy when, as you say, supply chains were disrupted so production decreased. Less stuff with more money = more expensive stuff, IE inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
All those studies that show positive benefits share the same flaw: it is applied only to some small number of people. Since you're calling it UBI, it would stand to reason that it's meant to be a universal payment. With that being the case, it becomes mathematically infeasible. if every US citizen were to receive $1000 every month, that would cost 90% of the federal government's revenue (about 4.1T from the roughly 4.5T that fails to cover the 6T in spending on the budget as it is). And that's without f
Re: (Score:2)
With that being the case, it becomes mathematically infeasible.
I think that you missed the part where I said that I have recommendations on how to adjust the income tax system to pay for it. Also, that my support for it differs greatly from most.
if every US citizen were to receive $1000 every month, that would cost 90% of the federal government's revenue
$500, not $1k, was my suggestion.
Okay, to give at least some numbers. $6k/year@330M recipients ~ $2.0T. As you said, $6T in spending.
But you failed to account for my proposal being to end other welfare programs: That's a savings of roughly $1T [federalsafetynet.com].
So we only really need to find around $1T. As you point out, we're borrowing ove
Re: (Score:2)
What you're proposing would be a massive tax increase for most people. I think your calculations are ignoring standard deductions and tax brackets, which massively inflates how much you think people are paying now. And of course there are plenty more deductions and credits available to people, further lowering the typical marginal rate.
The welfare programs you're proposing to eliminate pay out a lot more to people than your proposed UBI does, so your plan would be a huge negative to anyone currently receivi
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not. Note how I said taxable income, which would be the standard deduction part. Also note how I said."flatten the lower rates", IE I'm fully aware of how tax brackets work. .Consider, 30% of $32K of taxable income = $9.6k, $3.6k over my $6K UBI. Why the extra money?
11k@10% = 1.1
21k@12% = 2.5k
Total, the $3.6k they'd be paying anyways.
Yes, my calcs took tax brackets into account.
Actually, while some people on welfare get much more than $500/month from it, many don't. Most people on welfare do wor
Re: (Score:2)
The devil i still in the details. The fact that we have a 1.5 trillion budget deficit and 35 trillion dollar debt is exactly what has been driving all this inflation the last few years. So ok, we cut the benefit from 12000/yr to 6000 then it's "only" 1.5 trillion extra... We need only look at the tidal wave of inflation in 2021-2022 to see why it would be a terrible idea to stack on more debt.
And that's not even getting into the moral hazard that to pay the $6000 to every person universally each year, the
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the devil is in the details, but the trick is that I've spreadsheeted this.
And you seem to have some misconceptions. Inflation isn't caused by debt, by borrowing. That is because if you borrow money, you have to have somebody lend it to you. Money supply stays the same.
What drives inflation is an increase in the money supply without a corresponding increase in amounts of goods. Same money, fewer goods, inflation. More money, same goods, inflation.
You seem to have missed where I proposed a rather m
Re: (Score:2)
Your justifications certainly have some logic. However, I don't think you understand what "libertarian" means. Just because you call yourself one, doesn't make you one. Maybe the right way to put it would be that you "used to be" a libertarian.
Re: (Score:2)
As I posted earlier, I'm a philosophical libertarian more than a political one. The current party is infested with Randians. Ayn Rand hated the libertarians of her time, and they her.
https://medium.com/swlh/the-li... [medium.com]
https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/... [nyu.edu]
I come under "libertarian pragmatist"
Re: (Score:2)
I also had recommendations on how to transform the income tax system to account for it - go much more towards a flat tax, which would actually cost the extremely wealthy more in taxes, but the middle class types would stay mostly around the same.
The problem with that is, when someone like Taylor Swift goes to buy an iPhone, the amount of sales taxes she pays on it, when figured as a percentage of her income, is basically a rounding error. Then you take someone who earns $15/hr, which at full time is an annual net income of about $29,338 (assuming the standard deduction), and have them buy a $1,000 iPhone. At my local sales tax rate of 7%, that's 0.239% of their income in taxes. This is precisely why consumption taxes are considered regressive ta
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm... Nowhere in my post did I mention switching to a sales tax?
Flattening the tax system was meant more like changing the 10%, 12%, 20%, and 22% brackets all to around to 30%, which is still progressive because we're also handing everybody $6k a year.
And we'd tax the rich much more because I'd also raise the 20% capital gains rate to 30%.
Re:I'm different (Score:4, Informative)
347 million people in this country alone. At $5000/mo per person that $1,735,000,000,000 every single month. The entire planet doesnt make that kind of money combined. People like to say tax the 1% but even if you taxed them at 100% it would not come anywhere close to this. We would not have a 30T deficit if we had that sort of cash flow. If you say not everyone would be eligible then there is nothing universal about universal basic income. Youre just describing a more expensive welfare.
Order of magnitude change (Score:3)
Uh, $5k/month is about the highest UBI I've ever seen proposed. I'd consider that a typo, but your monthly spending is predicated on $5k/month. Not sure why you scored informative on that.
Remember, my proposal is $500/month, one order of magnitude below yours. That means it's "only" $174B/month. Works out to about $2T/year, when the federal government is already spending $6T/year.
Now, if you kill all the federal welfare programs, that puts us down to about $1T/year. Kill the state level ones as well, a
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The way Trump has turned the self-contradiction into an art form [politico.com], how is anybody supposed to understand what conservatives think?
Trump != conservatives (Score:2)
Yes, far too many of them are flocking to his banner and are likely to vote for him in November because the alternative is so hateful, in both senses. But that doesn't mean that all conservatives fall for the crassitudes that Trump spouts.
Re: (Score:2)
That poverty doesn't cause crime is a conservative fallacy. I will agree that crime causes poverty, in many ways. But my comment about "prison is expensive" comes down to that if you remove all welfare, people WILL commit crimes if prison is better than the alternatives, like starving.
People raised in poverty have much higher criminal rates than those that aren't.
Basically, my hope and belief is that some who would be criminals will be satisfied sitting on their arses instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, because we have welfare. I was talking about if we removed welfare.
Obedience training (Score:2, Insightful)
Second, money are only valuable if you have to work to get them. It is a measure of some effort. If getting money is effortless, they loose their meaning and value. I would say, it is also pretty bad.
To sum this up... It is a pretty bad idea. What do you guys think?
Re: (Score:3)
If getting money is effortless, they loose their meaning and value.
I don't think that's a common belief. Money has value because it can be exchanged for stuff and services. The source is irrelevant. Unless you want to try to convince me that Paris Hilton's pile of cash has so much more value than mine because she worked harder than I did. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Obedience training (Score:2)
Try convincing any lawyer or corporate executive that his money is worth less than that which his landscaper earns. You're assigning a moral value to earnings, which is absurd. Joe Exec can sit around on his rump fleecing shareholders all day, and in the end his money has enough value it can buy a yacht.
Re: (Score:2)
The corporate executive earns his money from the work of others. That's why his money has value.
Re: (Score:2)
thats a loss of total wealth
Re: (Score:2)
That's absurd.
Do you honestly think most people, or even a sizable minority, would just sit idle if they could survive without working? Hell, even if a UBI could provide a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, I'd be willing to bet that a large majority of people would still find productive ways to spend their time.
See, most people don't want to be useless. They want to do something meaningful with their life. If you're the type who would sit idle as long as you could maintain homeostasis, you're in a vani
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Obedience training (Score:2)
Idk.. she worked her flat ass off in that porno..
Not entirely true (Score:5, Interesting)
"Can be taken away" - there's a range of this. Most UBIs you get short of prison. If you're in prison, you don't need the UBI. For that matter, a court can take things that you were NOT given, starting with your freedom, and including things you own, future income, etc...
As for money only having value if you have to work to get it - I have to disagree completely. People value money for what it can get them. If they are inexperienced with it, or have a relatively large amount of it, then they may not value it the same. But watch a single mom on welfare plan the use of every single penny with the determination of a military logistics officer and tell me that those dollars don't have value to her.
The millionaire who "earned" every penny is likely to be more cursory with their money. Because after a point, their time is worth more than the extra money.
Housing flexibility (Score:2)
If you look at the restrictiveness (and administrative overhead) of Section 8 vouchers, it is clear that getting $1k in cash a month is a way better deal.
https://benefits.com/section-8... [benefits.com]
"5. Report Any Changes in Income
If you experience substantial changes in income, you must notify your local housing authority as soon as possible. The goal of the Section 8 housing program is to ensure that your household is paying roughly 30% of its income in rent every month. If your take-home increases, then the local ho
Re: (Score:2)
The rules are aimed at partners, who may have a part-time job. If you are doing okay except for the cost of housing, yeah, you're expected to share-house with other disadvantaged workers. Once upon a time, this was a normal step for horny teenagers, but now they have to be 'saved'. Plus, minimum wage now means living with the parents is the only choice.
You have extra cash? (Score:2)
Let me raise your rent. That's how it works. Economic 101. The secret to basic income is to give it to a very small number of people and in secret.
Re:You have extra cash? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but economics 101 is not how real markets work. If someone else is offering the same place to live at a lower price you end up with an empty unit. Of course the reality of the housing market is different. People don't pick up and move just because the rent goes up a bit. And every housing unit is unique. But offering low income people a basic income is probably not going to be enough to raise prices except in very special and limited circumstances.
Moreover, theories in general often have very little connection to real world results. They are ways of explaining in simple terms something that is too complex to actually understand.
Its hardly surprising that giving people $1000 a month improved their lives just as a $1000 a month raise would improve most of our lives. The question is where does the money come from and what, if any, negative impacts does it have on broader societal goals.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but economics 101 is not how real markets work.
I disagree, I see econ 101 stuff all the time, the trick is that "you earn more money, so I raise your rent" isn't actually in Econ 101. Note, Econ 101 is extremely simplified, so once you get past broad trends the caveats, subtleties, and other such stuff adds up quick.
To try to put it in Econ101 level, "everybody" needs housing. This makes the demand fairly price inelastic. IE people will sacrifice other things in order to still buy housing until they pretty much literally cannot do so - with only thin
Re: (Score:2)
If only some people get it then there is no U in UBI. I hate it when people fuck up names of shit. Call it the Dole. Call it welfare. But dont call something Universal and then turn around and claim only some people are eligible. Would you accept the term Universal healthcare if only the top 10% of income earners were eligible?
Rent and income are not linearly related (Score:2)
Let me raise your rent. That's how it works. Economic 101. The secret to basic income is to give it to a very small number of people and in secret.
Nope...sorry, they're not linearly related. Rent always increases, UBI or not. There's probably "some" extra increase in rent, but it's more than offset by the positive benefits.
UBI...it's not a question of "if," but of "how" and "when." The notion that you provide value to survive in the world isn't sustainable. It's worked for us for a few 100 years, but we'll run out of ways for people to provide enough value to sustain themselves and the system will collapse. Amazon is desperately trying to auto
Rent always increases: source please! (Score:2)
Note that the USA is replete with ghost towns where the rent has fallen to zero, as well as cities with vast swathes of abandoned residences (see Detroit). If there is a lack of population, rents WILL fall. That you've never experienced this and haven't thought of cases where it hasn't happened reflects a certain lack of...
Re: (Score:2)
Let me raise your rent. That's how it works. Economic 101.
That's nonsense. Rise prices and your competition will eat your lunch. That's how it works. Economics 101.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nonsense. Rise prices and your competition will eat your lunch. That's how it works. Economics 101.
No, the way it really works is secret back room meetings where the companies engage in price fixing, or they ask the government to slap a big import tariff on the products if the competitor happens to be named "China".
News for Nerds ? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Again I am struggling to see how this is a relevant article for Slashdot ?
Re: (Score:2)
It's on slashdot because these stories reliably generate a lot of clicks, a lot of comments, and therefore, ad revenue.
This was not how it was sold (Score:2)
The way this stuff is sold is that EVERYONE is supposed to get the money. Means testing and so on isn't how this is supposed to go, if someone really wants to test this they should have the guts to do it right and pick N random names to give money to and then start shoveling.
why stop there? (Score:3)
Let's just give 50 million dollars a year to every man, woman and child in the world. Then everyone will be wealthy, and happy. yay.
Oh look, socialism has benefits... (Score:2, Insightful)
...something people in much of the rest of the western world understands.
when your society doesn't have a safety net, you create desperation.
it's funny how using tax dollars to help people is such a big deal, while using it to purchase munitions and blow people up in far away lands is just fine and dandy.
Selectively applied UBI... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as any other living thing (Score:4, Insightful)
No surprise (Score:3, Interesting)
Every time guaranteed income has been implemented, there have only been positive outcomes for everyone involved. There's been more research into this than ending the AIDS epidemic, mostly because backers of Reaganomics are looking for that one welfare queen still, and they still haven't found evidence it goes any other way than this.
It's time to make universal basic income a reality.
Self presentation bias - the study (Score:3)
You want a real example? Free tribal money from casinos = double digit percentages of unproductive freeloaders that pool their money, get roommates, and live off it. That's a decades-long study for you.
Re:Clearly a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
And when your wealth is inherited, it's really important to have destitute people you can look down on. Otherwise you might realize that you did nothing in life but but pop out of the right womb. But the self worth issue can be easily papered over with lots of bling.
Actually, for families that have managed to stay wealthy for more than 3 generations, "lots of bling" is generally the last thing they do. "Bling" is a thing for Nouveau Riche, and those that go too far into it aren't going to stay wealthy for too long,
Wow, and I thought Calvinist were negative (Score:2)
'make the rich even more wealthy so they can feel good about themselves'
Source please. Why do you believe that? As someone who is comfortably well off, I am frustrated at the inability of governments to address the issues of poverty adequately, and find the ability of partisan politicians to use inequality as a means to power to implement irrational policies even more so. Though let me take this opportunity to apologise for the Nimbys who have kept house prices higher than they ought to be; the fact that ma