Wouldn't the price of everything raise accordingly, so that you basically can't afford anything with the basic income?
Government agencies are the worst of all mechanisms for dealing with human needs. They are necessarily bound by rules applied uniformly to people who have the same problems on paper but who will respond differently to different forms of help. Whether religious or secular, nongovernmental organization are inherently better able to tailor their services to local conditions and individual cases.
I find it ironic that this individual is for the so called UBI.
Why do you find it ironic? UBI gives people money without telling them what to do with it. It lets the market (i.e. the people) decide what they need instead of the government.
For example, you can imagine a shelter that will provide food, housing and services for the disabled in exchange for their UBI, which doesn't cover the entire cost but covers most of it and the rest is covered by donations.
There are funding options other than income tax.
> .. Our own San Francisco Association of Realtors says that the city’s median household income is a mere $77,700
http://sf.curbed.com/2016/2/23/11101182/11-percent-of-househ...
Doesn't that amount to the same thing?
"Phase out" means middle income people receive lower benefits in exchange for higher income people paying lower taxes. It's just a code word for screwing over the middle class.
So yes, there is likely an inflationary effect, but it is impossible to accurately predict.
It also depends on the net change in people's overall income as most basic income proposals include scrapping piecemeal and overlapping welfare systems.
Personally I think I could be convinced if it was essentially a replacement and thus simple to administer, but would have to be coupled with strict immigration control for the first country to try it.
If you actually fund this by taxes, like most proposals say, you'd probably still have an inflationary effect (since the lower your income is, the likelier you are to spend each marginal dollar), but likely not enough to outweigh the extra money.
If UBI was carried out as an exercise in wealth redistribution through higher taxes on the upper/middle class, then the inflationary effects would not be quite as high, although I would still expect to see some inflationary effects as middle/upper class folk drew down spending on some durable/luxury goods, while lower class folk would increase spending on staple goods. I think the overall effect would be slightly positive inflation.
I can barely afford to live in the US because I live in a pretty expensive part of it. I'll blindly guess that my zip code is the second most expensive one in NYC. My thesis is that you (and I, and my family, and everyone else who has ever lived) live only once. I refuse to live a gazillion miles away from work while wasting countless hours of my life commuting. This costs me, as the most desirable areas of Manhattan are also the most expensive.
To be able to afford such a lifestyle, I have to make a considerable amount of money. This leads to my family being ineligible for any kind of freebies from the government. We're forced to look on while other families receive handouts in the form of food stamps, free school lunches, free healthcare and subsidized housing. Many of those families cheat the system by finding loopholes in eligibility criteria. They sneak through and enjoy significant free comforts on my dime... and that of every other taxpayer in the country.
So yes, I can barely afford to live here because I'm being taxed to the gills while freebies are flying to countless others who don't deserve it. I'd much rather cancel the whole rigmarole and just flat out pay everyone the same basic income every year. At least my family will get its fair share of it.
Also, seriously, if someone is on food stamps or their kids are in the free lunch program, they are not advantaged, they are not comforted: they are living on the edge. Trust me.
On the other hand, I live in subsidized housing. The mortgage interest deduction is the largest (in terms of $) subsidized housing program on earth.
Price of goods with unlimited supply, where the price floor is determined by cost, will not rise.
Although everything kind of fall somewhere in between the two extremes -- rent will probably go up, whereas food not so much. And many things will not be affected because poor people will not buy them with or without BI.
The whole concept of countries creating way too much currency to pay their bills is a good reflection of this -- Zimbabwe and Venezuela being two recent and current examples. The irony is that all of that "extra" money actually means the recipients become substantially poorer as the supply chains get fucked up.
If it is just a little extra injection, the outcome would not be as extreme. In the most general cases, my guess is somewhere with a tight housing market would see a lot of the money just flow to landlords, in a renter's market the money might flow to consumable goods like drugs and alcohol.
If social & welfare programs are removed in exchange for BI, it is possible all the money would just have to be spent on medical and education. I don't really know the math behind everything but it could just be a restructuring of things that are already occurring. Do extra marketing and "profit" costs exceed government waste? Who knows. Certainly the ability for the government to influence social behavior would be reduced by a lot.
Replacing housing assistance with the equivalent cash might even reduce rents because then people can decide they would rather live in cheaper housing and use that money to go to college.
The whole thing with a UBI is that unless you make it more progressive than the existing system, all you're really doing is replacing vouchers with cash. If you do make it more progressive (i.e. provide more cash than you would have provided vouchers) then you get the same economic consequences as providing more vouchers (i.e. possible price inflation), but it's still more economically efficient than providing more vouchers, because then people can choose between college or better housing or better medical coverage etc., instead of having the government decide for you.
However, under UBI, I think suppliers of goods and services would still be faced with the basic issue of not knowing exactly how much consumers value any given product and competition would still exist so prices would likely still be set by supply vs demand.
Consider a society with 2 members, Mr Rich (net worth $10M) and Mr. Poor (net worth $100). Mr. Rich is 100,000 X richer than Mr. Poor right now.
Institute a ridiculous UBI of $1M/year for everyone. At the end of the year, Mr. Poor has $1,000,100 and Mr Rich has $11M but Mr Rich is now only ~ 11 X richer than Mr Poor.
Now sure cheeseburgers at Micky-D's are now $700 but the fact has changed that before, Mr Rich could buy a hundred thousand burgers for every one Mr Poor could buy. Now he can only buy 11.
UBI works like gravity. Continually pulling the unequal towards a center. The rich will still stay rich, but unlike today where rich automatically makes richer, the force will be reversed. It will take "energy" to stay rich.
Right now, it seems that Mr. Rich eats as many burgers as he wants (which isn't many really) while all of the Mr. Poors who would be happy to eat them if they could afford them, and happy to make them if someone would buy them (and then could afford to eat them themselves) sit around hungry because there's a recession donchaknow.
Its almost as if the mass of Mr. Rich's on-paper money is blocking the natural signalling between the makers and the eaters so the cycle jams up. It seems like something that needs fixing. So how?
What's one big negative of funneling even more money into the government? Further centralizing power in the government, which definitely cools my own fever to implement UBI, and definitely warrants some careful consideration. Since trust in government seems to be at an all time low, this point probably deserves some addressing [1].
[1]: http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-government...
The only way this could be true is the extraordinarily unlikely case where every individual provably had better experienced utility in one system than another, otherwise, the fact that there is no one objectively correct method of aggregating utilities across individuals to get a single measure of societal good means that there is no objectively correct ordering.
Prices go up for two reasons, when they can and when they must. Which one do you think would be the factor here?
* Note, this is specifically in response to the parent's scenario - I actually doubt that a UBI like the one in the article would lead to appreciable inflation, as the current entitlement plans already spread around more money than this would.
Any sane policy doesn't involve just printing money and giving it to people. It involves taking that money from someone else, through taxes, and THEN giving it to people.
Take a food stuff. In theory the current price is the cross section of supply and demand (price equilibrium), your idea is that with BI we have just increased demand while supply remains unchanged naturally price equilibrium changes resulting in a price increase. However, with a growth in demand, the market should respond and supply should increase to meet the increased demand, thus readjusting price equalibrium. Obviously this is for a food stuff not something more finite like housing.
Still food stuffs or housing, we don't really live in a free capitalist market as much as we would like to believe. There are many government subsidies artificially impacting current supply/demand/price. One example, farm subsidies where farmers are paid to not grow crops/farm their land (~$1.3B/year). I think its ridiculous, but economists more knowledgeable than me (even if on the farmer's dime) argue its necessary to keep supply artificially low to keep prices artificially high otherwise the entire industry would fail and we would all be starving.
Assuming BI did have such an overall impact on the prices of everything or even just the basics (food stuffs, housing, gas, etc...) there are all types of mechanisms the government currently employees to artificially raise and lower prices and special interests won't be going away with BI.