The apparent sticker price of this plan is $3.2T, that is if you don’t realize that it is a miscalculation simply to multiply the number of people times the benefit they are receiving, because that’s the gross sticker price. Much of that is returned and not actually a cost.

Fair enough. However, the broad claim that welfare will “pay for itself” to some extent is, in my mind, just as questionable as saying that a tax cut will “pay for itself.” Both ideologies in the US engage in ….. let’s call it “hypothetical economics”, where they engage in theories which are difficult to model and not well proven to actually occur.

So, I think it unwise to turn an entire economy upside down (which is what you are doing, if you are suddenly going to build a scheme that rips down existing welfare system and increases taxation markedly to create a broad-based retribution scheme. As I said previously, this is a bit like jumping off a cliff and hoping like hell there’s water at the bottom. If the “much is returned and not actually a cost” estimates are wrong, even by a little bit, you’re dead.

So, if you really want to talk about UBI instead of some of the (in my view) wiser alternatives, you need to start out with not $1000 a month, but a tenth of that. Otherwise, you’re risking economic suicide on a bunch of Keynesian equations that have NEVER been proven to work at this sort of scale.

I would be in the camp of seeing what $12K does.

Start with $1200. If you really think this is a good idea. I prefer the idea of the Guaranteed Job Benefit. UBI is greatly inferior to it, in my view.

This is a model for a small percentage of the fund. Conservatives have proposed similar things.

$10,000 a person is not small, but transformational. And I am unaware of any conservative proposing such things, and please don’ t use those old shibboleths from Hayek or Friedman. They proposed nothing of the sort, although I’ve seen UBI fetishists claiming they have.

We could also do similar things and charge a fee for land value, carbon, air pollution, patent protected profits, financial transactions, and many other things.

You can do all sorts of shit. The problem is that EVERY tax is a cigarette tax; if you tax it, you get less of it. It doesn’t matter what you try to tax — — and I agree that there are several broad based taxes that could potentially be looked at — you have to deal with the fact that regardless, you’re going to change people’s behavior as they try to avoid the tax. Crazy Uncle Bernie, fo one example, proposed a financial transactions tax that when you write it down on paper, sounds very small and easy, but if you actually DO THE MATH, that asshole would have cratered the trading markets, with the biggest hit being taken by retiree’s pension funds. MAYBE the markets could tolerate HALF of what he was suggesting, probably a tenth would have been preferable.

Carbon tax? Who gets hurt when the price of energy goes up? It’s not the rich. And on and on it goes. There are consequences when you change anything in an economic system.

like investing renewable energy, taking public transport, less stock speculation, etc.

Hence my point. Renewable energy kicks up costs for energy, hurting low income people. You’ve inflated something they must buy in order to give them the money to buy it. And you can’t just get less “stock speculation”, you also get less market liquidity, which can lead to a less stable market.

Count me out. You are painting an America with a lower standard of living and less opportunity.

I’m the proof of it, living an NYC.

Proof of what? That people can live in an austere fashion? That’s not news. But again, what you’re talking about is lowering our standard of living. How you live might work for you, that’s fine; but people aspire to improve their standard of living, not lower it.

Again, you’re actually suggesting, with a straight face I assume, that America implement a program that lowers its standard of living for the majority of Americans so income is distributed more evenly. See why Svetlana Voreskova refers to this as “socialism”? It’s not socialism, but it has the same result.

The ACA is not universal healthcare. It was a bastardized compromise that gave up much of the efficiency and savings potential that a true single payer universal system, intelligently designed, could make possible.

Obviously the ACA was not universal healthcare. There is a reason, btw, why most of the developed world does NOT use a single payer system; it’s inferior to the regulated insurance model. Single payer is not the only universal care model out there.

95% is a number you seem to have pulled out of the air.

Actually, it’ s not. There are not many people who prefer less living space to more, and prefer less privacy to more. Again, that’s a decrease in our standard of living.

Maybe you’re insinuating that creatives are worthless drains on society.

Too broad. I can’t speak for your personal situation, but it’s pretty obvious if you look at the arts programs at universities that they graduate far more people than can actually be employed in those fields. When it comes to acting, the chances of an actor living a comfortable life AS an actor are about the same as a kid who wants to be a professional basketball player when he grows up.

My conclusion is that there are no shortage of “creatives” who lack talent, but would love to be subsidized to create bad music and art. I am all for subsidizing young talented artists early in their careers; I am not so interested in subsidizing the mediocre. They are — sorry — NOT important culturally nor financially.

There’s always inflation, but if we’re not talking money creation, but rather simple redistribution, then were not inflating by increasing the money supply.

Yea, we are. Rich Guy’s money in the bank is not creating demand for any goods or services. You’ve said it yourself — — if that money is removed from Rich Guy’s bank account and given to Little Guy, Little Guy buys stuff with it. Demand goes up in the face of static supply. Inflation.

Inflation is not only about money supply.

It functions fundamentally very differently than the welfare system as we know it. It removes the disincentivizing welfare ceilings and traps we have unintentionally designed in by attempting to target it and means test it.

These are distinctions without differences. Any system that is designed to redistribute wealth for the benefit of the lower income tiers is a welfare system.

I put to you that the way we think about money should be tiered, that income isn’t really income until it’s disposable.

Well, that’s precisely why conservatives dislike taxes. If the government has a claim on what you earn, then it’s not really yours.

Welcome to the Tea Party.

Money isn’t money until you have a choice with it.

Agree again. This is why I keep telling the story about my relatives in Sweden and how their life sucks. They have a free (shitty) apartment, pensions (small and shitty), free health care……and no fucking disposable income. But, all their needs are covered.

We’re well into our transition into the gig economy. We’ve already begun losing jobs to automation and globalization as well, and the overall trend threatens to grow.

Granted, but there are still millions of good paying jobs within the reach of almost everyone still unfilled, mostly in allied health. I can’t speak for the licensing in another state, but any high school graduate in Texas is no more than six months away from a community college certificate that would allow them to gain an entry level position in heath care or as an EMT. A year will make you a licensed practical nurse. Two years and practical and you can be an RN.

It makes no sense to subsidize sloth when we have so many unfilled jobs.

I interviewed Jason Furman, a UBI opponent and top economic advisor for Obama

If he worked for Obama, he’s a full-on Keynesian. So, likely, he takes as gospel truth some of the same equations that conservatives don’t buy off on. So, there’s a fundamental disconnect there.

Great. If we did that, then that $0.2T would fund 22% of the $900B UBI I’m proposing.

900B? That’s only $234 bucks a month per person.

(Snipping a lot of stuff that gets back to the “fundamental economic restructuring” problem above. You can claim that UBI solves all the probles you like; the larger question is how many does it CAUSE, with such a large economic dislocation.)

The prevailing American mindset is the biggest challenge, I think. It’s hard to argue for a paradigm shift, and I have no delusions that it will be easy. But I intend to keep at it, and I am encouraged to see the movement continuing to grow.

As I said awhile back, good luck. It’s a movement that could very well grow — — everyone loves a free lunch, after all. And one of the reasons I have my heavily-used passport always ready to go. If something like this “wins”, then I’ll be taking my income and the rather substantial future income stream of my daughter expat to more sane climes.

I’m not the biggest expert on the inflation argument. Intuitively, I believe in the power of free markets to regulate prices

Oh, it will regulate them. That’s the problem. :-)

Written by

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store