81–90 of 413 posts
How is this a test of UBI? It's just a welfare system.
So it's not UBI, it's a test.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Means-tested programs are the epitome of wasteful government bureaucracy. It's never the right way to "compromise". If we can't sell straight UBI, then something like universal food stamps would be a good first step: https://web.archive.org/web/20160321083817/http://mattbrueni...
I'm not necessarily opposed to means-testing; for example, progressive income tax rates can be seen as a form of means-testing, and I think they're a good thing. What I care about is that the function from income earned to income (including subsidy) received be monotonic . Again, the income tax system (at least in the US) is carefully designed to have this property: when you make enough more money to move into a high…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm interested in hearing why it's a bad thing to disincentivize working more. Is it so bad for someone to not be working should they have enough money to live on? (I'm not sure if the benefits in this specific case are enough to live on, but I guess I'm thinking about the general principle.)
People working X hours a week are guaranteed to be spending those X hours producing something useful to society, or at least to their employer. People not working are not. Sure, some people who are not employed may be raising children or volunteering or doing something else beneficial to society,and encouraging them to work instead would be society's loss. But if we trust in the market economy, those people don't exi…
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.
So true, thanks for writing that! 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…
Since people born into wealth are "guaranteed money over their whole life", can't we study what they do with their life compared to what people who are not born into money do with their life? How or how not would this kind of study produce meaningful, legitimate 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).
There is some aspect of this kind of experiment/study to find out how individuals would perform if they didn't have the guaranteed income in the past but then suddenly do, but that's only meaningful for the transitional generation. If UBI were truly universal, it would need to be multi-generational. And how would those born with it, never having known anything else, treat/understand work? There's no such thing as "switching from a full-time to part-time jobs" in this context, or at least the impact and meaning of doing so is different than those who have a concept of what not having the guaranteed income means.
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.
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…
Would it be possible to do a modified system where they instead of losing the universal income unemployment benefits. There could be a system where the benefits are lowered in proportion to the income earned from jobs, that allows for those who are able to and want to work but are only able to find low paying jobs to have benefits that do not discourage them from doing work.
The thing you are referring to is called taxes. The more money you make the more taxes you pay and there comes a point that you're paying more in taxes than the amount of the basic income.
Phase outs are a pure scam. Their purpose is to conceal imposing higher marginal rates on low and middle income people so that higher income people can pay lower rates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Means-tested programs are the epitome of wasteful government bureaucracy. It's never the right way to "compromise". If we can't sell straight UBI, then something like universal food stamps would be a good first step: https://web.archive.org/web/20160321083817/http://mattbrueni...
I am reminded of an article I read years ago (sorry, no reference) about a low income family in Chicago (I think) during the Reagan era. The family had saved up a bit of money to send their kid to college, but some bureaucratic org found out. It was responsible for handling their benefits and because the total amount of assets the family had was over an acceptable limit, they cut out _all_ benefits to the family. Til…
Taxes should be used to pay for shared resources (roads, police, military,) but paying other people's living expenses? No thanks. America has poor and unemployed, yet Democrats seem to have no problem with illegal immigration which reduces the ability for those poor and unemployed to gets jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any data backing up the idea that it actually is a disincentive? 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 you…
Unfortunately it's quite common due to the layered nature of unemployment benefits in the UK to be far better off on benefits than to go into work. I know several people who work the bare minimum to qualify for all their benefits then proceed to claim them for as long as possible. One example being if you have several children, working can easily reduce your child-tax credits by an amount greater than your employment…
Curious thing, Kela (who handle the benefits, among other things) made their sampling code public[0]. The code doesn't really tell me anything though, except that the random seed is taken from wall time. [0] http://www.kela.fi/perustulokokeilun-otantakoodi