[Talyen42]

Too many bad arguments to count here... for example, he argues:

"Rather than giving everyone $1,000 per month, a guaranteed-income program would offer transfers only to individuals whose monthly income is below $1,000, thereby coming in at a mere fraction of a UBI’s cost."

Can you not see the obvious problems with giving someone $1,000 so long as they aren't making above $1,000? Why would anyone making $1k continue working for zero benefit?

With UBI, a minimum wage worker is still incentivized to work, as they don't lose benefits. That's kind of the point. Social safety net without getting trapped in the "net".

UBI has plenty of issues, but he's not making a good case.

[coldtea]

>Can you not see the obvious problems with giving someone $1,000 so long as they aren't making above $1,000? Why would anyone making $1k continue working for zero benefit?

No reason, they could stop and get the free $1000. That's not a problem, that's part of the whole idea: we don't want jobs where people make just $12/K annual salary, let them disappear...

[0815test]

Indeed, the "at a mere fraction of a UBI’s cost" claim is outright ignoring the economic cost associated with very high marginal tax rates. But Acemoglu also mentions the NIT, which would work a lot better than either. And, to be fair, the best-known economic models of non-linear income taxation imply that marginal tax rates on a NIT should actually be fairly substantial (60% or so would not be out of the question!), so as to keep the break-even point from getting too high; the rates just shouldn't be as high as 100% or more!