"Even with a one-third flat tax, that implies that a family of four would have to make $120,000 a year before it paid $1 of taxes"
Given that the top quartile earners already pay something like 75% of all taxes this statement sounds a lot worse than it is. We already get very little from the not-rich
yeah I feel like UBI for no reason is insane. The only conversation that's interesting or makes sense is in the context of an AGI future. Which unfortunately Bryan doesn't address at all here. But based on his live stream the other day I dont think he thinks that's going to happen
The Finnish universal basic income (UBI) experiment, which gave 2,000 unemployed people a monthly stipend, didn't significantly boost employment. While participants reported increased happiness and reduced stress, the experiment was widely considered a failure because it didn't lead to more people finding jobs.
The real problem is that many taxpayers ultimately think they are getting more out of the welfare state than they truly are. Whatever government service they rely on, they think the world will end if it's taken away. Anyway, I like austerity. I'm for it. I'm a minimalist at heart so I may be biased, but I think it can improve lives.
"Helping the small minority of people who can’t help themselves doesn’t cost much." That is an assertion that needs a lot more evidence to support. There's nontrivial evidence that the administration of these programs cost more than the recipients actually receive from them which somehow doesn't make any sense. So, the question is, if UBI costs less than the total cost of current welfare programs with your view change?
Those are great economic arguments against UBI, but I have a few caveats :
I would argue that welfare is not charity. It's a way to pay off the least productive people to keep them out of the jobs market. "Charity" is just a marketing gimmick the the state uses to make people feel good about paying for something that should be taxed to businesses.
UBI is communism/socialism, and will have all of the same externalities.
Left leaning peoples, regardless of political affiliation, view communism/socialism as a compassionate moral good and and economics and markets as cold uncaring spaces. There has to be a leftist moral argument against UBI that makes it unpalatable in that regard too. I haven't given it much thought what those arguments are since it's been politically unfavorable. But I might need to now that the federal government seems to be granting itself special powers to mandate policies regardless of public opinion.
What is the difference between the two? I guess UBI could be construed to mean to more than just citizens, but most UBI proposals I know of are restricted to citizens, so could reasonably be called a Citizens Dividend. I also think LVT would be an ideal way to raise the money, but other options (e.g. Norway and Alaska's huge funds from fossil fuels, or a tax on AI or robotics if they seem poised to eat much of the job market) also seem suited to the job.
The difference is that while things like AI are created property, land is uncreated and ought to be the common property of mankind. As that is impracticable, taxing the value of land rents and distributing them to the population is the next best thing.
So the funding mechanism is the key difference, and Citizens Dividend is synonymous with UBI, except that it clearly states that it is for citizens only?
In that case I think we pretty much agree, but I'm confused by your initial clause that UBI is a bad idea.
"Even with a one-third flat tax, that implies that a family of four would have to make $120,000 a year before it paid $1 of taxes"
Given that the top quartile earners already pay something like 75% of all taxes this statement sounds a lot worse than it is. We already get very little from the not-rich
Would your view change if AI and robotics were to replace something like 70% of jobs?
yeah I feel like UBI for no reason is insane. The only conversation that's interesting or makes sense is in the context of an AGI future. Which unfortunately Bryan doesn't address at all here. But based on his live stream the other day I dont think he thinks that's going to happen
The Finnish universal basic income (UBI) experiment, which gave 2,000 unemployed people a monthly stipend, didn't significantly boost employment. While participants reported increased happiness and reduced stress, the experiment was widely considered a failure because it didn't lead to more people finding jobs.
https://medium.com/basic-income/what-is-there-to-learn-from-finlands-basic-income-experiment-did-it-succeed-or-fail-54b8e5051f60
UBI has been tried and it failed. Another reason UBI should not be considered or implemented. As always, Bryan, you are spot on.
Brian, can you justify the statement: "In a free market, voluntary donations are sufficient to support the truly poor"?
I anticipate that this will generate a lot of pushback.
I want you to know that I’m sympathetic to the argument, by the way. I'm not trying to be snarky.
The real problem is that many taxpayers ultimately think they are getting more out of the welfare state than they truly are. Whatever government service they rely on, they think the world will end if it's taken away. Anyway, I like austerity. I'm for it. I'm a minimalist at heart so I may be biased, but I think it can improve lives.
It gives people true freedom because it protects them from the vagaries of private and public power.
Everyone should. A wage-subsidy type EITC is a belter way to redistribute income to low paid workers.https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/ubi-no
"Helping the small minority of people who can’t help themselves doesn’t cost much." That is an assertion that needs a lot more evidence to support. There's nontrivial evidence that the administration of these programs cost more than the recipients actually receive from them which somehow doesn't make any sense. So, the question is, if UBI costs less than the total cost of current welfare programs with your view change?
Those are great economic arguments against UBI, but I have a few caveats :
I would argue that welfare is not charity. It's a way to pay off the least productive people to keep them out of the jobs market. "Charity" is just a marketing gimmick the the state uses to make people feel good about paying for something that should be taxed to businesses.
UBI is communism/socialism, and will have all of the same externalities.
Left leaning peoples, regardless of political affiliation, view communism/socialism as a compassionate moral good and and economics and markets as cold uncaring spaces. There has to be a leftist moral argument against UBI that makes it unpalatable in that regard too. I haven't given it much thought what those arguments are since it's been politically unfavorable. But I might need to now that the federal government seems to be granting itself special powers to mandate policies regardless of public opinion.
Universal Basic Income is a terrible idea, Citizens Dividend paid out of a Land Value Tax is a necessity for a just society.
What is the difference between the two? I guess UBI could be construed to mean to more than just citizens, but most UBI proposals I know of are restricted to citizens, so could reasonably be called a Citizens Dividend. I also think LVT would be an ideal way to raise the money, but other options (e.g. Norway and Alaska's huge funds from fossil fuels, or a tax on AI or robotics if they seem poised to eat much of the job market) also seem suited to the job.
The difference is that while things like AI are created property, land is uncreated and ought to be the common property of mankind. As that is impracticable, taxing the value of land rents and distributing them to the population is the next best thing.
So the funding mechanism is the key difference, and Citizens Dividend is synonymous with UBI, except that it clearly states that it is for citizens only?
In that case I think we pretty much agree, but I'm confused by your initial clause that UBI is a bad idea.
It gives people true freedom because it protects them from the vagaries of private and public power.
I wish you'd quit repeating this nonsense.