[microcolonel]

The solution to some people getting played by the system surely isn't to play everyone even more by that same system.

I figure UBI will look like it's succeeding for ~10-20 years, then we'll see what the real impact of it is (as people grow up with it). There's also little consensus on how comfortable the basic income should be; I get the impression that if it is too comfortable, you'd be a fool to work, if it's too uncomfortable, the bleeding hearts will call everyone a nazi until it's made too comfortable.

[slackingoff2017]

UBI is welfare with a different name. The results will be the same.

Some people will sit on their asses and never work a single day but the majority of the population would keep working. The extra money would become meaningless because prices would adjust to accommodate it.

We have to keep in mind that you can't just create money and hand it out and make everyone rich. If everyone had 10x as much money prices would end up going up 10x. The supply of real goods you can use that money for hasn't changed. The huge increase in demand would lead to a supply crunch and much higher prices.

The money we're giving out for UBI has to be taken from someone else. What UBI is calling for is wealth redistribution, something I'm in favor of. But people seem to think it's magic around here.

If we pillaged the top 1% and distributed their wealth evenly the entire rest of the population would get close to a 100% raise. That's how filthy rich the top 1% are.

[microcolonel]

> If we pillaged the top 1% and distributed their wealth evenly the entire rest of the population would get close to a 100% raise. That's how filthy rich the top 1% are.

The problem with this, of course, is that the rich would simply leave. They are the most attractive to rob, and the best prepared to escape.

In addition, "the 1%" is not an exclusive club; most people (currently) have a pretty good chance of entering the 1% at some point in their life, most in the 1% have a very good chance of exiting it.

[s_kilk]

> In addition, "the 1%" is not an exclusive club; most people (currently) have a pretty good chance of entering the 1% at some point in their life, most in the 1% have a very good chance of exiting it.

You can't be serious. Social mobility (to the extent it ever existed) is way down over the past 40 years, and there's no sign of that trend reversing.

[stephenbez]

I assume you meant the top 10%. In the US 56% of people will spend a year or more in the top 10%. 12% of people will spend a year or more in the top 1%.

http://www.aei.org/publication/evidence-shows-significant-in...

[slackingoff2017]

I had no idea that 12% of the population makes top one percent income for at least a year of their life. What causes so many of these people to fail?

How could there possibly be so many jobs that offer that kind of income. Or maybe it's that most jobs offering high income have short tenure..

[danielvf]

The 1% for the most part aren't billionaires. Last year in the US, the threshold was just under $285,000. Ignoring professionals, plenty of small business owners can hit that on a lucky year. (And get hammered other years). There are a lot of jobs in the US with companies with fewer than 50 people.

Confiscating the assets of the 1% to create economic prosperity has been tried a few times before, and usually turns out horribly in ten years. You've removed the people who risk their own money from society, and replaced it with only assest allocation by bureaucrats.

Plus, as soon as you removed the one percent, then you have a new one percent.

See Dekulakization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization

[kuschku]

The solution isn't in removing them, but in going back to the top tax rates of the 1950s/1960s/1970s, which were around 70% for the top bracket.

With that, you can then reduce the taxes for the lower economic classes, and fund better infrastructure and education.

[slackingoff2017]

As much as I like the idea of wealth redistribution I have the same doubts it will work. A similar phenomenon happened in South Africa when it was tried. The initial wealth distribution worked okay but it got rid of owners that knew how to run a business and replaced them with corrupt politicians.

As much as many of the 1% don't deserve it... A lot of them have that much money for a reason. The ones I knew, the "new money", were generally extremely intelligent and hard working before they made their millions. A lot of them are on permanent vacation now but if all of us had that much brains, charm, and grit it would be a lot easier to get rich.

[Unkechaug]

Are they counting income from inheritance, selling assets (houses), etc? I wouldn't be surprised in that case.

[stephenbez]

Short answer, not really.

It looks like this is the source for the claims: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

This is what the paper says: "Total family income is the measuring stick used to determine levels of affluence achieved. This is defined as taxable income of head of household and spouse, taxable income of other family members of the household, and transfer income of head, spouse, and others."

Based on what I know about US tax, you don't have to pay taxes on the first $500k in gains for your primary house (if married), and inheritances usually aren't considered taxable income.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/capital-gains-and-your... https://www.hrblock.com/get-answers/taxes/income/is-your-inh...

[icebraining]

The problem with this, of course, is that the rich would simply leave.

The rich can leave, but the profits their companies generate locally can still be taxed. And they can be taxed more when the money gets sent to wherever those rich people went to.

[lovich]

That's a pretty bold claim about people's chance to enter and leave the 1%. Additionally there are only so many places to run to and its not like peoples money is all tied up in gold that can be smuggled out of the country anymore. It's pretty easy for governments to just put a block on their accounts if for some reason the wealthy decided they could make all of their money off of a society and then bounce when it came time to share in that same society

[wott]

> most people (currently) have a pretty good chance of entering the 1% at some point in their life

I beg your pardon?

[nnd]

UBI is not welfare, it's by definition ubiquitous and unconditional. Welfare programs can and should exist in addition to UBI.

[GavinMcG]

> The extra money would become meaningless because prices would adjust to accommodate it.

That's not actually supported in the literature.

[slackingoff2017]

The value of any currency is how much real stuff you can buy with it. If there's 20% more dollars in circulation each one would be worth 20% less.

This is why UBI is wealth distribution. Too keep the UBI money from being worthless it can't be printed money, it needs to be money taken from someone else.

[tpallarino]

It's not quite equal due to factors such as money velocity and liquidity. There's also the question of improved productivity/etc. to be had from this redistribution, which would increase effective buying power.

[microcolonel]

I mean, it is the case if UBI contributes to inflation, which it clearly would. Literature or no literature, if the money supply increases, prices will increase unless efficiency improves faster.

[icebraining]

The lack of inflation following QE casts doubt on such a simplified model.

But in any case, you don't have to inflate to have UBI. Just tax money a bit when it gets distributed to shareholders.

[lazulicurio]

There's been plenty of inflation post-QE, just not in the CPI[1]. Housing prices post-crash are higher than ever, fueled by still-easy access to financing. Healthcare is up. Education is up. People are just taking the money that was shoved into the economy by QE and low interest rates, and using it for capital expenditures and investments instead of consumer goods. There's so much supply of consumer goods that the money is flowing to places where demand can't be met as easily.

[1] For example, the CPI tracks "owner's equivalent of rent" instead of raw housing prices https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheet-owners-equivalent-rent-and...

[microcolonel]

> Just tax money a bit when it gets distributed to shareholders.

Well, that would factor in as a depression of dividends for all stocks; that would only reduce the value of holding stocks, sounds like it would backfire tremendously. Then you have the issue of whether or not to tax dividends to foreign-held stocks: if you tax disbursements, it would compound some countries' taxes and ultimately reduce the value of holding american stocks; if you don't tax foreign disbursements, then the people you're looking to tax would set up their holdings somewhere without a dividend tax.

I'm wondering how you think this could work.

[icebraining]

Right, first I need to state that I would increase the income tax; anyone making about $100k would essentially pay extra as much as they received from UBI, and people making more would end up paying more than they'd get from UBI.

So the tax on dividends would just serve to cover the gap, not the full amount.

[enraged_camel]

>>Literature or no literature, if the money supply increases, prices will increase unless efficiency improves faster.

No. This is one of the pitfalls of economics: overly simplistic models that don't (can't) properly account for external factors, and assume everyone has perfect information and behaves rationally.

The real world does not work that way.

[bsaunder]

I think for UBI to work, it has to be paired with a VAT/sales/transaction tax. Its also not a boolean: no UBI or gushing UBI. In fact it seems much more reasonable and palatable to start small with periodic up/down adjustments to keep the economy running (perhaps very similar to the current fed interest rate adjustments).

Surely at some modest level UBI is likely to greatly benefit the bottom (who will likely immediately inject the money into the economy). As with anything in life, yes, people will argue over it. That's probably a good thing.