[AnthonyMouse]

> Any form of UBI should 1000% be in the form of benefits, goods, housing, or other physical goods.

We've tried this and it's a dumpster fire. The government builds low income housing which is 100% people in poverty and it turns into a slum. The government subsidizes home loans and student loans and it raises the cost of housing and education. The government subsidizes food and then restaurant workers who already have access to food can't use the money to fix their car or whatever it is they really need right now.

People know what they need better than bureaucrats do. If you give them money and they need food, they buy food. If you give them money and they need transportation, they buy transportation. If you give them food and they need transportation, you messed up, which is what consistently happens in practice when you don't give them money.

[TheFiend7]

Fair but you just completely ignored the second half of my comment. Instead of handing out money, don't take it in the first place?

[AnthonyMouse]

In general that's just the same thing. If the per capita average cost of providing roads and schools etc. is $15,000/year then anybody you're taxing less than $15,000/year is really getting a subsidy in the amount of the difference. They get roads and schools and pay less in tax than they cost and the other taxpayers have to pick up the tab.

Nothing about that changes at the point where the amount of "tax" someone pays goes negative. They started getting a subsidy from other taxpayers when they paid less than $15,000, not when they paid less than $0.

So if you want to call a UBI a "tax credit" then go ahead, but changing the name to "tax credit" makes no mathematical or economic difference at all.

[tialaramex]

Yup. This is an _extensively_ studied problem. Money works. It works in an African village and in an Alabama trailer park the same. The main argument against giving people money is only an ideological one, that we "shouldn't" give people money rather than that it doesn't work better.