[_heimdall]

Literally any economic decision is reallocated resources, that term is much too broad to be meaningful. Are you arguing that a UBI is wealth redistribution specifically?

Someone will try it, totally agree there. I don't see any problem with that either, countries should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I wouldn't tell France they shouldn't try it, but I am absolutely saying I don't want to try it here in the US.

[Retric]

> Are you arguing that a UBI is wealth redistribution specifically?

I’m saying social safety nets are already wealth redistribution. Changing the form of that safety net to UBI is an allocation of resources based on individual decisions and thus free markets where Food Stamps/Housing Subsidies/etc is allocating money based on bureaucratic decisions.

Basically nothing says UBI needs to cost more than existing social safety nets.

[_heimdall]

Social safety nets today are needed weslth distribution. A UBI needs to cover everyone. With the same funding a UBI would have to provide less benefit than the programs we have today.

That said, my argument against a UBI isn't even that it's too expensive. Anyone claiming that a UBI will be too expensive is falling into the same trap those arguing for a UBI fall into. The impact when making such a massive change to our social and economic system is impossible to accurately model and predict. The OP author actually seems to agree with this by pointing out that a UBI program can't be tested. Oddly, though, the author's solution to that is to YOLO a UBI program into our entire country without being able to understand what the likely impacts will be.

[Retric]

UBI requires changes to the tax code, but look at the comparison between SNAP and the 10% tax bracket for people making 0-11,600$ in the US: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41086690

At least for single people how SNAP sunsets with income is almost 1:1 with the discount for the lowest tax bracket.

Thus changing SNAP to a low UBI could have almost zero impact.

[HPsquared]

If the current spending on safety nets is spread evenly over the whole society, won't the current recipients not have enough to live?

[Retric]

Only if you ignore the tax code. US example for single people:

SNAP for a single person is $291/month - total income * 0.3 so they get nothing at 11,640 per year of annual income and 291$/month at 0$ annual income.

2024 income brackets for single people are: 10% $0 to $11,600, 12% $11,600 to $47,150, 22% $47,151 to $100,525, ... Maximum tax bracket is 37%.

Hand everyone 260$ per month, but change things so the highest tax bracket 37% applies $0 to $11,600 and everyone making 12,000+$/ year sees zero change in their take home pay. And people making 0$/year get 260$/month.

Those numbers aren’t quite identical, but it’s surprising how close it ends up. At 30%, $0 to $11,640 it’s off by less than 1$/year.

[_heimdall]

Not quite sure that I follow here. In your model, what are the proposed benefits given out as a UBI? Is it $260/mo reducing down to $0 when you make at least $12,000 per year?

If so, how is that universal? Or a basic income covering some of the basic resources UBI is argued to cover, like shelter or food?

[Retric]

My example was for a US UBI that only covered food and the math was limited to single people, but the points could be applied more broadly.

UBI means everyone has an income of at least x$/year. If you’re making more than x$/year in take home pay that’s an income > x$/year.

Behind the scenes the advantage of the government handing out money every month is redundancy. Even if that same amount is normally removed from a paycheck, people aren’t suddenly left with 0$ if their paycheck bounces etc. Thus a single deposit of $10,000 per month is slightly worse than a deposit of $10,000 - $x and an independent deposit of $x.

[_heimdall]

If you want to take the SNAP program as a baseline and only slightly tweak the limits on when funds taper off, why bother with a new UBI program at all? It sounds like SNAP gets you 90% of the way there, it mainly just needs the restrictions on what the money can be spent on removed.

With limits so low I'm not totally sure how it would make a meaningful difference compared to the various welfare and entitlement programs we have today in the US. We already have multiple programs attempting to give needs-based funding to the public. How is such a limited UBI as you describe it any different, or different enough to justify the massive political battle it would entail?