[notepad0x90]

I really wish people would learn to keep emotion out of this topic. There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". Not: "Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?".

Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services, the health-care system,etc.. and how many new tax paying consumers it produces. Is it a reliable investment on people or is it a poor gamble? I've been hearing about this since before the 2016 election, there should be ample data on this, instead of speculation. And I have no problem with cities/states re-attempting and retrying new approaches to UBI.

That said, are there any studies or experiments out there where instead of a blind UBI, people are put in a labor pool of some sort where they get guaranteed income but if they're able-bodied they must make themselves available to perform jobs for the state or clients of the state? I'm thinking this should be the alternative to things like prison labor. Again, take the emotion and speculation out of it, what do we have left?

[mihaic]

I think it's even rational to not keep emotion completely out of something like this, since UBI is not meant to maximize economic output, it's meant to improve the quality of life for most people.

In order to asses how that quality of life can be improved, it's necessary to treat humans as humans, and not as some automatons for which a specific KPI needs to be maximized. Any proper assessment of quality of life has to have some instinctive component that models the human element, even if it's only used to picking what weighted set of metrics should measure quality of life.

[notepad0x90]

This take is too far removed from reality. There isn't even a good minimum wage for people who want to and can actually work. employment laws are too much against workers and for employers. there are endless social issues that require funding, why would UBI be a good idea given all that?

Yeah, treat humans as humans. the disabled, the elderly, the mentally ill, those who can't care for themselves, they should get help first right? Some situations are not zero-sum, this however is a zero-sum situation where UBI is funded by tax payers who would rather see their money spent elsewhere.

Either it is a general solution that addresses many social issues or it is a welfare program. If it is welfare then it needs to reflect society's appetite on who should get assistance. I do think even when the scope is narrow, it is better than what we have today where you really have to fight tooth and nail and surrender your privacy and dignity to get things like food stamps. But wealth distribution itself needs a huge shake up as well as a dramatic increase in taxation before UBI can be practical at a national level.

[mihaic]

> This take is too far removed from reality.

I wasn't trying to argue for or against UBI here. Rather, I was trying to make a case that it's rational to have some emotional judgement, if we can try to use it as a proxy for how the life of those that benefit from UBI would change.

Personally, I also think that UBI is too much right now, but I think it should be debated as well since the approach one level under it (massive wealth redistribution) deserves an honest chance, which it only gets when it's no longer the extreme position in public debate.

[DonaldFisk]

> There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". Not: "Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?".

There have been numerous pilot studies, e.g. those listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income . The problem is that opponents of UBI invariably point out that as only some people received it, and only for a limited time, that it wasn't universal, or that it took place in in some other country, or decades ago, so it doesn't apply in their country, or today.

> Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services, the health-care system,etc.

Its purpose is to ensure that everyone has their basic financial needs met, not to provide those particular government services.

[arijun]

Perhaps not police departments, but proponents do claim it reduces the stress on social programs. If it allows people to put money where it's needed, then they might need those programs less. An ounce of prevention and all that.

[notepad0x90]

> Its purpose is to ensure that everyone has their basic financial needs met, not to provide those particular government services.

The government is run by the people. If it increases cost to tax payers over all then the tax payers (people/voters) have every right to oppose this. Even social security alone (for elderly people who can't care for themselves) is untenable, the government has been borrowing from social security funds for decades. Many millennials are at risk of paying for SS their whole lives only to find it can't actually support them at their old age. UBI doesn't make sense at-cost.

The reasonable arguments I've heard state that homelessness, crime, medical cost and similar things will have reduced cost, in which case, sure, why not. But there are a long list of things that need funding long before UBI, if it is at-cost. Another good example is minimum wage, does it make sense to have such a low federal minimum wage and impose UBI on top of that?

[DonaldFisk]

> If it increases cost to tax payers over all then the tax payers (people/voters) have every right to oppose this.

They should be informed. There are various proposals (this one is new to me), and issues with it which are still unclear. And there's a lot of misinformation from people ideologically opposed to UBI.

For some people, UBI would replace existing benefits (examples of which might include child benefit, unemployment benefit, student grant, the non-contributory part of old age pension). That doesn't cost anything. Reduction of bureaucracy (no further need for means-testing the benefits UBI would replace) actually saves money. People already earning an income would of course pay extra taxes to fund UBI, but they would also receive it, so that would just be redistribution with no net cost. That leaves only people not seeking work, e.g. those looking after their children but not claiming any benefits.

[immibis]

Is politics supposed to be about maximizing the government's money? We saw where that lead with businesses. I thought the government was there to do things that weren't good profit maximizers but made the world better.

[maxerickson]

They are saying that a good justification for a UBI would be if it maximized the value obtained with the spending. If $1 spent on basic income were demonstrated to improve society more than $1 of police spending, and so on.

It's of course harder to measure value to society than it is to measure profit, but it is reasonable to consider it when looking at policy proposals.

[spacebanana7]

A government is a collection of politicians. Those people are power seekers by definition. Almost always, the increasing the size of the budget under their control increases their power.

[contravariant]

Politics is supposed to make maximizing money a good idea.

All things being equal (which they're not) it would be a bit odd to choose a policy that ends up being more expensive. Either money doesn't work as it should or it's a bad policy.

In this case the hidden costs of police and health is a lot higher than the hidden cost in what is effectively a purely administrative change.

[logicchains]

In most western countries there are few state-run enterprises so there's little "government's money". There's taxpayer's money, and they care how it's spent.

[6510]

Every time I think about that it strikes me as a dumb idea. Everything that cant be allowed to fail should be a government enterprise.

I would go nuts with the concept, turn city hall into a museum, hotel, grandcafe, restaurant, cinema, casino, conference rooms, desks for rent, city tour guides, etc etc open 24/7. Live music if there are no council meetings on the big screen. It should have a room to smoke weed too.

If you ignore how silly it sounds, what do you think the revenue will be like?

[randallsquared]

More and more things will become too important to fail, in this scheme. ;)

[6510]

Perhaps but we currently err on the other side.

[ElevenLathe]

The emotional valence of a policy does actually matter, since you have to sell it to voters (or whoever is in charge in a society). Technocratic governance is not a stable way to run society, as the last 30 years have shown. Any political agenda with a hope of being enacted needs to stir the heart in order to have any hope competing against others. The fact that a policy is provably a good idea and would make everyone better off in a theoretical world where everyone went along with it, is not even necessary let alone sufficient for it to become a real policy.

[vintermann]

> Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services, the health-care system, etc

Sure, people can do that, but remember that it's impossible to measure wealth without distributional concerns. Whenever you ask "will this make us richer", there's an implied wealth distribution in the question, since what's valuable depends on who has money.

[notepad0x90]

I'm asking more in the lines of "will this sort of and roughly make for its cost by savings elsewhere, resulting in minimal cost to tax payers?"

[jdlshore]

Generally speaking, it reduces the cost of welfare programs by replacing complex need-specific bureaucracies with a simple blanket payment. Food stamps go away, for example, assuming a large enough payment. Similar for low-income housing, government cheese, Medicaid, etc. (Again, depending on the payment.)

So the total cost to government is lower, but probably not enough that the costs of the program are covered. Beyond that, it’s a wealth redistribution program. Wealthy and/or high-income earners pay more tax so that low-income earners get a net benefit.

The argument in favor is that the wealthy paying more tax is a net positive to society, because $3000 is worth more to someone earning $20K/yr than it is to someone earning $500K per year.

[neilwilson]

The biggest set of data points comes from the most obvious and widespread UBI - the state pension. Available to a certain section of the population

That's how all UBIs thus far appear to work. You need a fixed exchange rate area where some people don't get the UBI so that the physical output that actually funds it can be extracted from the people who don't receive it. That separation can be physical area, or age.

We can see from the state pension that the majority of people in receipt of it don't work. Instead they live off the output of others.

If UBI was a realistic possibility then the age at which people receive the state pension would be heading down towards 18 (since a UBI is just a state pension where the qualification age is the age of majority). The data tells us that the qualification age for retirement pensions is heading upwards, due to a lack of productivity gains to support it.

We also see complaints about its existence, which demonstrate that the capital inheritance maintained by the older generation and handed over to the young is not seen as sufficient to justify the state pension payment given to the old. Capital hasn't been maintained well enough and doesn't give enough to younger people. To the extent that younger people are agitating to have the state pension reduced or removed.

Switch 'old' and 'young' for 'in area' and 'out of area' and you see why UBI 'experiments' always end or are ended. Those who end up working to create the material output that actually funds the transfer get fed up getting nothing material in return and have the transfer stopped.

Somebody has to do the work to grow the carrots. If you aren't doing anything meaningful in return, (which means what the carrot grower wants you to do, not what you want to do) why won't they stop growing carrots when they have enough for themselves, and have Fridays off?

[mandmandam]

Empirical evidence from UBI pilots shows most recipients continue working. This invalidates your entire analogy and comment.

However there are still some other points worth making:

1. No, pensions and UBI are different things. Asserting that 18 year olds will react the same as 70 year olds to receiving enough money to live on isn't just against the actual evidence, but against really basic common sense.

2. Without getting too into the weeds, UBI doesn't mean that no one works. It changes the bargaining power of the poorest and most taken advantage of. The carrots will still get grown, but it won't be by abused laborers in de facto slavery.

3. "The data tells us that the qualification age for retirement pensions is heading upwards, due to a lack of productivity gains to support it" - False. Productivity has risen for 50 years. Wages have not risen to match.

> Somebody has to do the work to grow the carrots. If you aren't doing anything meaningful in return, (which means what the carrot grower wants you to do, not what you want to do)

You seem very confused. The person who does the work to grow carrots is the carrot grower. The person who owns the land and imports seasonal workers 10 to a cabin is an exploiter.

[tgv]

> I really wish people would learn to keep emotion out of this topic. There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?".

That's what you feel. You've already introduced emotion, by using the highly subjective word "best", and the loaded phrase "our tax dollars."

> Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services,

And yet, there is more to UBI than savings. It's also proposed as a means to give people more freedom. Your choice to look at savings betrays an emotional attachment to economic value over all else. But that's not the same for everyone.

That said, I do not believe UBI can ever live up to its goals, and can actually create a worse society, even after initial success. That alone makes it subject to speculation and emotion. The effect of UBI simply isn't predictable. Economists can't even predict a moderate crisis when it's about to unfold, let alone the long term consequences of a radical system change.

UBI is hence a political choice, and one that's tied to personal expectations and hope.

[6510]

> I really wish people would learn to keep emotion out of this topic.

Emotions are the fuzzy result of billions of years of experience. We are capable of great things if the mind set is right. The mind set is almost entirely emotional. You are curious, you learn, you interact with others, you set goals, you accomplish things. If others do the same we can be proud together. It takes very little to disrupt this process and create people who don't give a fuck anymore.

I get that you want things to be analytically sound as anything else would be worthy of paranoia. Just read the article and see it is exactly what you've asked for.

[soco]

Politics are lately more and more about emotion (we're under attack!) and speculation (it will be a catastrophe!) so as much as I agree with you, I don't see it happening. Or rather, I don't see this particular argument getting much attention - as real as it might be.

[bsenftner]

> There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?"

This attitude right here is why UBI will never exist without being a farce, a trap, and those that go on UBI regulated to institutionalized misery.

Plain fact: humans do not give gifts without expecting returns. UBI violates this basic tenant. No, the economic activity generated by UBI is not enough, that's a flat wash, the returns need to be just like investments.

[forinti]

A labor pool would add bureaucratic costs and also UBI is a bonus for many, not their sole source of income.

[facile3232]

> There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?".

The government has far more ways of financing things than taxes. I’m not sure why we refer to money this way—it’s fundamentally disingenuous. A federal budget is not the same thing as a household budget in any way.

[notepad0x90]

That argument makes no sense, I don't care that the government has other revenue sources, those revenue sources still belong to the people. The government doesn't have its own money, it manages its people's monies. And UBI at significant cost only makes sense if the people agree to that cost.