11–20 of 413 posts
That last part is huge. A disincentive to work by cancelling benefits is a feature of nearly every current system. It is extremely important that someone test a system without this in it to see how a people react.
This looks like a very important test for the viability of UBI.
Another limited duration trial (two years). What's the point? It's not going to measure the real effect. People will know it is going to run out and behave differently than if it was permanent.
Don't give them the money just for two years, but guarantee them the money over their whole life and you will see vastly different results.
Another "problem" with this kind of study is that they are giving money only to unemployed people. Because it would be also interesting to see what people with jobs would do. I suspect a lot of people would switch from full-time to part-time jobs (at least that's what I would do).
How is it "universal" if recipients are required to be jobless?
So UBI is fundamentally a safety-net; insurance, if you will. The "universal" quality is that all people will be eligible for UBI. Everyone will receive the difference between what they make and what UBI guarantees. It's sort of like the popular phrase in the U.S. - "everyone is guaranteed the same opportunity but not the same outcome". Thus, while all will have access to UBI, the payout will be determined by individ…
This isn't UBI either.
UBI would simply give everyone the same income without subtracting the difference for extra earned income. You could earn millions and still receive your basic income.
Jobless people generally cannot earn additional income while collecting unemployment benefits or they risk losing that assistance. Worst. Idea. Ever. I know -- it's a common feature of income support systems, including here in the US. I don't know whether UBI is going to prove workable or not. But even if it doesn't, if we could just redesign the systems we do have so they never give recipients a disincentive to work…
https://web.archive.org/web/20160321083817/http://mattbrueni...
I want to be on record here. Today, December 17, 2016, I predict that this will fail. And by "fail", I mean that this will not become a universal entitlement in Finland.
Jobless people generally cannot earn additional income while collecting unemployment benefits or they risk losing that assistance. Worst. Idea. Ever. I know -- it's a common feature of income support systems, including here in the US. I don't know whether UBI is going to prove workable or not. But even if it doesn't, if we could just redesign the systems we do have so they never give recipients a disincentive to work…
1. Anyone I know that has received benefits for being unemployed desperately wants to be employed again.
2. In the UK, unless things have changed, you can work up to 16 hours per week while receiving unemployment benefits and I believe the benefits you receive gradually falls with the amount of work you get paid for.
3. If you suddenly lose your job benefits aren't built so that you can maintain your current life style. You likely have car, insurance, and mortgage payments to make and the benefits you're receiving either just get you by or you have to renegotiate some of that debt. Not a situation you want to be in long-term.
I want to be on record here. Today, December 17, 2016, I predict that this will fail. And by "fail", I mean that this will not become a universal entitlement in Finland.
This is not a meaningless distinction -- one of the features of UBI is that it is universal. If this just goes to unemployed people we cannot see the change in behavior with people who are earning close to their reservation wage. Do they stop working?
This is streamlined rebranded welfare. Not a paradigm shift.
>It will give them benefits automatically, absent bureaucratic hassle and minus penalties for amassing extra income. That last part is huge. A disincentive to work by cancelling benefits is a feature of nearly every current system. It is extremely important that someone test a system without this in it to see how a people react. This looks like a very important test for the viability of UBI.
edit: i misunderstood your comment, seems like your interpretation lines up with mine.