[efriese]

This assumes that giving everyone a basic income is a life preserver. If giving people in poverty money was the fix, we would be done. People have to want to get out of poverty. Really want it. The system right now incentivizes people to stay in poverty. The "cliff effect", where government benefits decrease faster than gains in earnings, keeps many people from getting out. Trying to address that problem first would be better than just giving everyone money.

[krschultz]

That's actually one of the arguments for the universal basic income. If everyone gets the basic income, as you make more money, it doesn't decrease your benefits.

Means testing (i.e. reducing benefits as you make more money) is what creates the really high effective marginal tax rate that you describe. The opposite of means testing is giving it to everyone.

[efriese]

No I get that, but are you really advocating giving everyone the amount that the lowest tier get today? It's like $35k per year total.

[unprepare]

No one is claiming we should hand out an amount that is larger than the average salary in the country.

The current welfare system does incentivize staying poor and having more children, because those increase your benefits, and moving out of that level of income directly correlates to a decrease in benefits.

With basic income, there would be no punishment for climbing out of poverty, your yearly income at no point declines because you were paid more money. This incentivizes people to earn as much as possible, because there is no downside to earning another dollar.

The kids thing is the trickier issue. I've seen people promote the idea that people under 18 should also get a monthly stipend that is a percentage of the adult rate. I think that this will still incentivize people to have more children, since they can capture the extra income from it.

I have heard others say that children should not receive a basic income, and that the income should not be increased ro changed for parents over non-parents. This makes it so that every person over 18 receives the same amount and does not incentivize having more children. The problem here is that childcare costs can be high, so it seems to disincentivize people from having children at all.

I'm not sure which is the preferred outcome, or if there are other possible solutions, but its an interesting question to think about for sure.

[deciplex]

> If giving people in poverty money was the fix, we would be done.

No, we wouldn't, because we don't do that.

> The system right now incentivizes people to stay in poverty. The "cliff effect", where government benefits decrease faster than gains in earnings, keeps many people from getting out.

Basic income avoids this utterly.

[efriese]

>No, we wouldn't, because we don't do that. Yes we do. What do you consider EIC to be?

>Basic income avoids this utterly. Not quite. If you give it to everyone the individual amount will be lower. $1k a month won't even make a dent. It would need to be closer to $3k a month to get close to the combined benefits people can get. That's around $900B a year.

[runj__]

>EIC

EIC is the mother of "strings attached", you have to have a job in order to earn that money. Poor people don't have jobs and if they do they're afraid they'll lose them at a moment's notice.

>It would need to be closer to $3k a month to get close to the combined benefits people can get.

For $1k you can buy a house in the middle of nowhere and not work, anything more than that is just "luxury". I'm an adult living in a city (buying insanely priced food) and I don't spend much more than that (other than rent).

[efriese]

You don't have to have a job, you have to earn money. Those are two different things. Begging is a form of income. I think your view of "luxury" is somewhat different than most people. Most people in poverty live in cities with high cost of living. Relying on them to make the most of that money by moving out of cities isn't likely to happen. They could already do that today and don't.

[mrow84]

They don't because they need to earn money, and to earn money you have to go where jobs are - cities. With basic income you wouldn't so people would be incentivised to move to lower cost areas.

[pmontra]

There is no cliff effect with basic income. You get $1000 because you're alive. If you get a job and are paid $1100 for it, you make a $2100 total. Without basic income your job would be worth only an extra $100 and I understand that it might not be worth the effort. Probably you'd be losing money because of travelling from and back to home.

By the way, the cost for whoever pays those $1000 of basic income is lower because they get back part of them by collecting taxes.

[dwg]

One might assume/hope that we would rethink and eliminate some of the programs/incentives you mention, should basic income become a reality.

For example, perhaps welfare could be reduced or eliminated. Perhaps certain tax credits to the poor could be eliminated. Perhaps charities and programs could focus more where there is a true need (e.g. drug addicts, or the severely disabled).

[djur]

One of the benefits of a basic income program is that it doesn't cause a cliff effect. Same with universal health care. Universal benefit programs don't cause cliff effects; the more you try to narrowly distribute benefits to the 'deserving' needy, the more likely you are to cause such an effect.