Comment by SeanAnderson | Hacker News Reader

Comment by SeanAnderson | Hacker News Reader

I don't know much about UBI. How do people generally see it being implemented?

Does everyone get the exact same, flat amount? Do only people below a certain income get it? Does the amount gradually decline based on current income? Does the amount change based on cost of living? If someone remains destitute after being given UBI - is that now more clearly "on them," or do they now qualify for additional support?

Genuinely curious. It seems like these questions are very challenging to answer in a way that feels good/fair to all involved.

(edit, follow up questions:)

- If everyone gets the same amount then how would we reach alignment on fair amount if COL in different areas is wildly different? The gap between highest/lowest rent in America is 4x - 800 vs 3200. Said differently, is there a goal outcome with UBI or is the goal to just give out some money? Are we trying to make sure just everyone's rent is covered, rent and food, or just easing the pain a little?

- If we give everyone money every month, and that money immediately goes into circulation, doesn't that just cause inflation and then we're right back to where we started?

AIUI, if it's not something everyone gets (universal) and it's not the same amount for everyone (basic), it's not UBI.

Thanks. The clarification that basic means same amount for everyone is helpful.

UBI is universal, as others have said.

There’s also the concept of “guaranteed minimum income,” which, I believe, just tops you up to the minimum income amount if you make less. In comparison, guaranteed minimum income seems much more difficult to administer (means testing and all that), and it seems like it would incentivize bad habits, in the sense that if you make less than the threshold, why not just quit your job?

A minimum income should probably not be a fixed amount, there should be a true minimum at zero other income and the payment should decrease with increasing income but at a slower rate than the income increase. I guess that is essentially what a negative income tax is.

And we already have that, the EITC.

If it’s given to everyone then you’re going to be subsidising the wealthy while cutting support for the poor. Supporters want it because they dream of playing xbox all day.

If it’s given to everyone then taken away based on income, that’s just a stupider version of the current system. We already give people support based on need, so why would we get rid of that just to circle back? Just make the support better if the poor are struggling.

I don’t think it is obvious that it will have to come at the cost of cutting support for the poor. At least, we’d save a bit by not having any administrative costs.

It could also de-politicize this sort of support, and avoid embarrassing wastes of money, like the time Florida decided to spend more than they saved by drug testing welfare recipients.

Projects that help everyone seem easier to sell politically.

> If it’s given to everyone then you’re going to be subsidising the wealthy while cutting support for the poor. Supporters want it because they dream of playing xbox all day.

The usual idea is that you increase (progressive) taxes such that there is some income level at which you net zero, because you are taxed an additional amount equal to the UBI.

As the other person said, the key reasoning for UBI is that you avoid a lot of forms of means testing (which prevent eligible people from getting access to the resources) and administrative costs (in terms of reviewing eligibility requirements) which can make things less efficient.

The U in UBI stands for Universal. Everyone gets the exact flat amount, unconditional. That means there is much less administrative cost (don't need to verify that people belong to certain income brackets for example). Overall, the theory is that it would reduce government wasteful administrative process, while being more effective at lifting people out of poverty. The experiments so far are positive.

Okay. So, in the case of America, it would either be relatively ineffective for those living in cities, or relatively enriching for those living in rural areas, yeah?

It seems challenging to get everyone to agree on a fair number.

This also depends on population density, which is lower in rural areas.

Another key aspect of it being universal is that it doesn't disincentive work and improving one's situation. This is a huge problem with unemployment and other means-tested welfare programs. People end up in situations where they're actually worse off if they get a job or make more money.

It can’t cost more to administer something than it does to give it to everyone. That’s just inherently a ridiculous claim.

Should we give everyone hip replacements rather than bothering with appointments and need? Think of all the administration saved! Just book everyone in!

Except now you’ve spent a trillion on hip replacements, the people who actually needed them are getting less support and on a huge list, and you’re just pointlessly operating on random people.

It's not inherently ridiculous. Administration is a non-zero cost. Anything below that cost is cheaper to give rather than administer.

Hip operations are a weird counter example to refute UBI. They're obviously not universally applicable and are more expensive in cost and resources than the administration overhead. That's leaving aside the ethical issues of giving people unnecessary surgery.

> It can’t cost more to administer something than it does to give it to everyone. That’s just inherently a ridiculous claim.

Let's say there's three people, making $0, $10K, and $100K annually in pre-tax income.

The first person has to stand in line to get welfare. The second person has to prove that they deserve the tiny amount of of welfare they may be entitled to, chewing up the time of government bureaucrats in the process. The third person has to pay income taxes, deal with refunds, tax write-offs, etc...

All three people already involve the government, have to deal with paperwork, and this overall process generally costs non-zero money to implement.

Let's say these people pay $0, $0, and $30K in taxes, for $0, $10K, and $70K net income.

With UBI, the tax brackets are adjusted such that the person making $10K pays $5K in taxes, and the person making $100K pays $40K in taxes. These are just parameters (numbers) plugged into an existing mainframe.

The government now has an additional $15K of tax revenue.

Then everyone gets a "tax refund" of $5K, as-if they had a bunch of business expenses or whatever. Again, just a parameter in the tax dept mainframe!

Now the net incomes are: $5K, $10K, and $65K.

The beauty of this system is that no humans are involved. Nobody has to evaluate your assets, income, side-gigs, or whatever. Nobody has to care if you're "too rich" to get government assistance because everyone gets government assistance.

It's cheaper because it's just numbers plugged into a mainframe that already processes everyone's tax every year! No additional expense is required: no new department, no new staff, no new offices.

In fact, vast numbers of government drones can be made redundant, because... they're redundant now. Whatever they were getting paid before (a lot) can be added on top of the additional tax income. Billions, certainly, in most countries.

Instead of pushing paper around, they can now join the commercial workforce and hopefully be productive members of society instead of telling disabled people that they don't deserve help because they have a valuable painting on their wall they inherited from their grandmother.

Well the U stands for universal. It is likely that taxes will fund it, so your taxes when working would probably offset it. That's my understanding.

That's where the Land Value Tax comes in... In my Georgist dreams, at least.

They just want to give free money to people, and expect that it will work our for all involved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com