[roymurdock]

If UBI was carried out as a series of one-time cash injections (such as QE), then yes it would simply lead to inflation as a large proportion of UBI recipients would have the propensity to spend that money immediately on rent, food, debt, releasing the cash into circulation and ramping up inflation. Spending would probably remain unchanged for middle/upper class folk who would view UBI income as negligible.

If UBI was carried out as an exercise in wealth redistribution through higher taxes on the upper/middle class, then the inflationary effects would not be quite as high, although I would still expect to see some inflationary effects as middle/upper class folk drew down spending on some durable/luxury goods, while lower class folk would increase spending on staple goods. I think the overall effect would be slightly positive inflation.

[maxaf]

I'm upper middle class, and I can already barely afford to live in this country. What we need isn't more taxes but a more judicious use of taxes that are already being levied. An effective and workable UBI scheme would replace all other forms of means-tested social support payments, foreign aid, and expenditures on meaningless warfare overseas. In such a perfect-world version of the United States UBI suddenly becomes feasible. One may only dream.

[nickbauman]

I'm going to guess you either bought a house you can't afford or have more than 2 kids or have a lot of student loan debt. (Not judging at all) Correct?

[maxaf]

Zero student debt, one kid, and I'll never own real estate, as I've explained in prior HN comments, i.e. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11495713

I can barely afford to live in the US because I live in a pretty expensive part of it. I'll blindly guess that my zip code is the second most expensive one in NYC. My thesis is that you (and I, and my family, and everyone else who has ever lived) live only once. I refuse to live a gazillion miles away from work while wasting countless hours of my life commuting. This costs me, as the most desirable areas of Manhattan are also the most expensive.

To be able to afford such a lifestyle, I have to make a considerable amount of money. This leads to my family being ineligible for any kind of freebies from the government. We're forced to look on while other families receive handouts in the form of food stamps, free school lunches, free healthcare and subsidized housing. Many of those families cheat the system by finding loopholes in eligibility criteria. They sneak through and enjoy significant free comforts on my dime... and that of every other taxpayer in the country.

So yes, I can barely afford to live here because I'm being taxed to the gills while freebies are flying to countless others who don't deserve it. I'd much rather cancel the whole rigmarole and just flat out pay everyone the same basic income every year. At least my family will get its fair share of it.

[nickbauman]

That's interesting. My employer is also based in Manhattan. I live in Minnesota. I live in a 4-br home that costs me $800/mo including taxes in downtown Minneapolis. I go and work in Manhattan once every 3-6 months for a week or so. I could never live there though; I would be throwing my money away. I like certain aspects of NYC, but not enough to take such a paycut. There have been a lot of studies that show that what kind of home or city has almost no bearing on your happiness. You might reconsider.

Also, seriously, if someone is on food stamps or their kids are in the free lunch program, they are not advantaged, they are not comforted: they are living on the edge. Trust me.

On the other hand, I live in subsidized housing. The mortgage interest deduction is the largest (in terms of $) subsidized housing program on earth.