Many economists would also argue that any welfare program has labor market disincentives, but that a UBI may be less distortionary on both extensive and intensive margins, cost less, reduce welfare benefit cliffs, and improve efficiency.
UBI isn’t a bad idea just because of labor market disincentives. That’s silly.
Edit: the current state of the lit (minimal, if any, health (physical/mental) and financial health improvement) are better arguments against low level UBI’s.
SemichiSam on
Under the present system in the U.S., the Federal Reserve Bank creates money out of thin air and lends it to banks at low interest rates. Then the banks lend it to us at higher interest rates. I call this the Universal Basic Income for Large Banks. The Fed could continue to create this money and give it to citizens, instead of to banks. This money given directly to the people would enter the economy immediately. The money would have a high velocity and would stimulate the economy.
The people would benefit by the change, but banking institutions would lose by it. The people who would be hurt most by the change own the media that are constantly publishing articles explaining why UBI won’t work.
GPT_2025 on
Do not repeat History mistake: ” …When the Soviet Union established 1961 strict **income borders,** a single mother working part-time could earn enough to pay rent (or mortgage), support two college-aged children, cover two car loans, and pay all bills, fees, taxes, tithes, dues, and food. She would also have enough savings for a 30-day family vacation once a year.
(Riches were capped at 2 times the minimum wage, with a 91% tax on income above that. For example, a full-time worker earning $16,000 (160R) a month would mean the boss’s maximum income was $32,000 (320R) a month.
That was enough to pay for two property rents or mortgages, four car loans, support 20 children through college (or university), pay all bills, and still have some money left to invest in gold and diamonds, some did.)
Then, with the implementation of **zero unemployment** and the disappearance of poverty: plus a rent (or mortgage) moratorium capped at $600 (6R) for a new three-bedroom house or condo: the population lost all interest in buying, investing, or hoarding real estate (except for main plus vacation homes, which remained popular: dacha).
Eventually, 98% of people became homeowners or condo owners, **with zero homelessness.** Property ownership was guaranteed by the Constitution: no property taxes, and no one could seize your property, not even through judgments. Only you could sell or give it away. Was Off-gridders heaven.
As a result, people lost all desire for $$$Mammon (stocks and bonds were banned). There was zero interest to hoard Money$$ or investments, and the population was so relaxed and carefree about today, tomorrow, or the future: not because of Faith, but because of the system and they wasn’t Tanksful to God. When Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Nuclear Peace Deal, the people were singing: **”Peace and safety!”** and the **USSR collapsed and vanished.** Do not repeat same mistakes!
KJV: Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things; (Deut. 28:47- read whole chapter!)
* Added: from 1961 to 1989, there was almost zero inflation, zero unemployment, zero homelessness, and nearly zero poverty. Everyone had a guaranteed safety net at all ages, pregnancy’s then parental paid 18 month leave, free or discounted childcare, free educations with a free school lunches, almost zero divorces, etc.
Guaranteed retirement at 45 (police), 55 (women), or 60 (men). There were guaranteed burials, universal healthcare, and paid 30-day vacations at the best interior resorts.
There was also an option for free housing (condo ownership) for dedicated workers with 5 or more years of service. No rich kids versus poor in the schools and no shootings… 98% population was the same. KJV: For when they shall say: **”Peace and Safety!!!” t**hen sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape! (collapse!)
mct137 on
Calling it Supplemental Basic Income (SBI) would sell this so much better, specifically in the US. I find the argument against UBI that it may incentivize people to not work at all and accept a lower level of lifestyle to have some merit.
However, if we styled “UBI” as “SBI”, an income source that SUPPLEMENTS your overall income and makes sure you don’t slip into poverty, as another social safety net, it would be very attractive to opposition. It would work into our existing frameworks for entitlement programs that require some level of either productivity (you are looking for or actively working, or going to school). If you are disabled, I’ll, or otherwise unable to work, SBI would help to alleviate costs born by other safety net programs such as Medicaid, SSD, etc too.
DeviantTaco on
Probably the simplest argument in favor of UBI is how badly wealthy people need you to know it’s terrible, would crash the economy, would never work, but also they need those bailouts and subsidies please.
Dramatic-Panda8012 on
universal basic income will create a group of lowlifes who refuse to work, and a group of workers will be taxed to death for it, just like its in UK now
JollySquatter on
I love the post I saw once saying getting $200 for passing Go on Monopoly is a UBI, but it doesn’t stop anyone from trying to produce/earn/win more.
AffectOdd9719 on
Such an incompetent argument by the author – first no real data from Hamburg other than voters got spooked by taxes- just like the ads that got Hillarycare killed and led to the kludge that is Obamacare – we know people are largely emotional and low information and there is a huge right wing ecosystem focused on distraction. Is thisnwhat happened in Hamburg? Or were there real debates and arguments?
Second – the arguments on taxes and distortions. Read like a high school economics text- this is only convincing for fellow travelers from the Heritqge or Hoover foundation – even the right wing NYT would demand a little more thought (I hope) –
8 Comments
Many economists would also argue that any welfare program has labor market disincentives, but that a UBI may be less distortionary on both extensive and intensive margins, cost less, reduce welfare benefit cliffs, and improve efficiency.
UBI isn’t a bad idea just because of labor market disincentives. That’s silly.
Edit: the current state of the lit (minimal, if any, health (physical/mental) and financial health improvement) are better arguments against low level UBI’s.
Under the present system in the U.S., the Federal Reserve Bank creates money out of thin air and lends it to banks at low interest rates. Then the banks lend it to us at higher interest rates. I call this the Universal Basic Income for Large Banks. The Fed could continue to create this money and give it to citizens, instead of to banks. This money given directly to the people would enter the economy immediately. The money would have a high velocity and would stimulate the economy.
The people would benefit by the change, but banking institutions would lose by it. The people who would be hurt most by the change own the media that are constantly publishing articles explaining why UBI won’t work.
Do not repeat History mistake: ” …When the Soviet Union established 1961 strict **income borders,** a single mother working part-time could earn enough to pay rent (or mortgage), support two college-aged children, cover two car loans, and pay all bills, fees, taxes, tithes, dues, and food. She would also have enough savings for a 30-day family vacation once a year.
(Riches were capped at 2 times the minimum wage, with a 91% tax on income above that. For example, a full-time worker earning $16,000 (160R) a month would mean the boss’s maximum income was $32,000 (320R) a month.
That was enough to pay for two property rents or mortgages, four car loans, support 20 children through college (or university), pay all bills, and still have some money left to invest in gold and diamonds, some did.)
Then, with the implementation of **zero unemployment** and the disappearance of poverty: plus a rent (or mortgage) moratorium capped at $600 (6R) for a new three-bedroom house or condo: the population lost all interest in buying, investing, or hoarding real estate (except for main plus vacation homes, which remained popular: dacha).
Eventually, 98% of people became homeowners or condo owners, **with zero homelessness.** Property ownership was guaranteed by the Constitution: no property taxes, and no one could seize your property, not even through judgments. Only you could sell or give it away. Was Off-gridders heaven.
As a result, people lost all desire for $$$Mammon (stocks and bonds were banned). There was zero interest to hoard Money$$ or investments, and the population was so relaxed and carefree about today, tomorrow, or the future: not because of Faith, but because of the system and they wasn’t Tanksful to God. When Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Nuclear Peace Deal, the people were singing: **”Peace and safety!”** and the **USSR collapsed and vanished.** Do not repeat same mistakes!
KJV: Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things; (Deut. 28:47- read whole chapter!)
* Added: from 1961 to 1989, there was almost zero inflation, zero unemployment, zero homelessness, and nearly zero poverty. Everyone had a guaranteed safety net at all ages, pregnancy’s then parental paid 18 month leave, free or discounted childcare, free educations with a free school lunches, almost zero divorces, etc.
Guaranteed retirement at 45 (police), 55 (women), or 60 (men). There were guaranteed burials, universal healthcare, and paid 30-day vacations at the best interior resorts.
There was also an option for free housing (condo ownership) for dedicated workers with 5 or more years of service. No rich kids versus poor in the schools and no shootings… 98% population was the same. KJV: For when they shall say: **”Peace and Safety!!!” t**hen sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape! (collapse!)
Calling it Supplemental Basic Income (SBI) would sell this so much better, specifically in the US. I find the argument against UBI that it may incentivize people to not work at all and accept a lower level of lifestyle to have some merit.
However, if we styled “UBI” as “SBI”, an income source that SUPPLEMENTS your overall income and makes sure you don’t slip into poverty, as another social safety net, it would be very attractive to opposition. It would work into our existing frameworks for entitlement programs that require some level of either productivity (you are looking for or actively working, or going to school). If you are disabled, I’ll, or otherwise unable to work, SBI would help to alleviate costs born by other safety net programs such as Medicaid, SSD, etc too.
Probably the simplest argument in favor of UBI is how badly wealthy people need you to know it’s terrible, would crash the economy, would never work, but also they need those bailouts and subsidies please.
universal basic income will create a group of lowlifes who refuse to work, and a group of workers will be taxed to death for it, just like its in UK now
I love the post I saw once saying getting $200 for passing Go on Monopoly is a UBI, but it doesn’t stop anyone from trying to produce/earn/win more.
Such an incompetent argument by the author – first no real data from Hamburg other than voters got spooked by taxes- just like the ads that got Hillarycare killed and led to the kludge that is Obamacare – we know people are largely emotional and low information and there is a huge right wing ecosystem focused on distraction. Is thisnwhat happened in Hamburg? Or were there real debates and arguments?
Second – the arguments on taxes and distortions. Read like a high school economics text- this is only convincing for fellow travelers from the Heritqge or Hoover foundation – even the right wing NYT would demand a little more thought (I hope) –