Universal Basic Income: A Dream Come True for Despots

[rangerrebew]

Universal Basic Income: A Dream Come True for Despots
 
01/11/2020Antony Sammeroff

[This essay is based on a talk by the author at the Eighth International Conference of the Austrian School of Economics in Vienna on November 14, 2019.]

I’m sitting in the pub after a Skeptics Society meet up. I don’t go very often, but there was a famous author speaking, and living (as most of us do these days) in something of a social media bubble, this is a rare opportunity for me to actually get a window into what thinking people outside of my circle have to say on some of the issues of the day. A warm chat ensues over a pint with a couple of the other attendees, when miraculously the conversation at my table turns to the universal basic income (UBI). My neighbour gushes with vigour over its merits. He eagerly vows that it will solve innumerable problems facing our civilisation and I get the feeling he has been spreading the gospel at every available turn because this idea is the crucial one. If only he can get enough people to believe it …

I abstain from mentioning my book as I don’t want to prejudice his answers to any of my questions. I politely wait my turn, and then ask a simple question: “What do you think the potential disadvantages of the basic income would be, then?”

He replies, “There aren’t any.”

https://mises.org/wire/universal-basic-income-dream-come-true-despots

[berdie]

The Universal Basic Income is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have heard recently.

Why would one get a job to further themselves?

[Smokin Joe]

It is the ticket to a permanent 'underclass', and likely to be funded by keeping people there (with taxation).

[goatprairie]

The Universal Basic Income is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have heard recently.

Why would one get a job to further themselves?

You have described the main problem.
Of course, many liberals for this thing believe 99% of people will forego slacking off and eagerly pursue careers that will involve a lot of pain and effort.
The thing is, we can already provide employment for virtually all not mentally challenged, able-bodied people.
But milions still slack off and either become parasites living off the earnings of others or  criminals.
Creating a UBI that ensures any person who doesn't work can still subsist even with minimal basic comforts, will create many more millions of slackers who will be quite willing to sit on their kiesters while other people slave away at some job. Two or three slackers can join forces and live quite comfortably on  $36,000 annually or whatever  income they'd get from the fed. gov.
Once again liberals flunk the human nature quiz.

[roamer_1]

Believe it or not, this is nothing new. Welcome to Serfdom. Enjoy the free gruel.

[libertybele]

The Universal Basic Income is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have heard recently.

Why would one get a job to further themselves?

They wouldn't.  Just as those who can make more or an equal amount of money on disability or medicare and food stamps, etc.  There isn't an incentive.  Remember, there are now generations of families who haven't worked -- they just sit back and collect a check from the government and expect government to always take care of them.  Katrina was a perfect example.  Lots of people who live in hurricane prone areas stock up on food and supplies and have a means to take care of themselves for a couple of days.  Those primarily in Louisiana win Katrina hit, hadn't prepared in the least as they expected the government to rescue them completely without having to do anything for themselves.

This dependency on government has been instilled in many by the DEMS; courtesy of LBJ's Great Society.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If this comes to pass, we ain't seen illegal immigration yet compared to what will come.

[The_Reader_David]

The Universal Basic Income is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have heard recently.

Why would one get a job to further themselves?

Because the UBI level is set to give one a meager existence just above starvation level with the meanest housing one's society regards as acceptable, and a level of health coverage that only kicks in to keep one from going bankrupt (see Charles Murray's book In Our Hands for details).  Unlike the current system where the meager income (welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid) is means-tested, i.e. conditioned on not earning money, the UBI doesn't present an effective confiscatory tax on the first few dollars earned by the poor, and therefore is less subject to your critique than our present system.

[goatprairie]

Because the UBI level is set to give one a meager existence just above starvation level with the meanest housing one's society regards as acceptable, and a level of health coverage that only kicks in to keep one from going bankrupt (see Charles Murray's book In Our Hands for details).  Unlike the current system where the meager income (welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid) is means-tested, i.e. conditioned on not earning money, the UBI doesn't present an effective confiscatory tax on the first few dollars earned by the poor, and therefore is less subject to your critique than our present system.

Except two or more people in the same dwelling can subsist better than one with just one rent payment instead of two or three.
Or, instead of seeking full-time employment,  you might get a lot of people who will just get a part -time job, twenty hours per week or less, to supplement whatever they get from the fed. gov.
One thousand dollars a month is three thousand for three people in the same dwelling. I'll bet there's many millions who would be quite comfortable with that arrangement.

[Smokin Joe]

Because the UBI level is set to give one a meager existence just above starvation level with the meanest housing one's society regards as acceptable, and a level of health coverage that only kicks in to keep one from going bankrupt (see Charles Murray's book In Our Hands for details).  Unlike the current system where the meager income (welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid) is means-tested, i.e. conditioned on not earning money, the UBI doesn't present an effective confiscatory tax on the first few dollars earned by the poor, and therefore is less subject to your critique than our present system.

Define, in dollars, the meanest housing. You can't. It is one thing in NYC, another in BFE. So who gets what?
All that is is welfare for slumlords, and the rent will expand to consume the UBI, which would be raised for the increase in "cost of living". All I see is universal inflation.

[Smokin Joe]

Because the UBI level is set to give one a meager existence just above starvation level with the meanest housing one's society regards as acceptable, and a level of health coverage that only kicks in to keep one from going bankrupt (see Charles Murray's book In Our Hands for details).  Unlike the current system where the meager income (welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid) is means-tested, i.e. conditioned on not earning money, the UBI doesn't present an effective confiscatory tax on the first few dollars earned by the poor, and therefore is less subject to your critique than our present system.

A family of four will get more money back from the IRS than they paid in (EIC) if they work enough to remain under the cap for poverty. How is that confiscatory?

[The_Reader_David]

A family of four will get more money back from the IRS than they paid in (EIC) if they work enough to remain under the cap for poverty. How is that confiscatory?

You implicitly answered your question.  If they work enough to lift themselves out of poverty, they don't get the EIC, at some point they lose Medicaid eligibility, they lose subsidized housing eligibility, they lose SNAP eligibility.  Mean-testing produces a disincentive for work that is not present under a UBI.  The poor aren't so stupid as to discount the value of their benefits they'd lose when considering taking a job.

[Smokin Joe]

You implicitly answered your question.  If they work enough to lift themselves out of poverty, they don't get the EIC, at some point they lose Medicaid eligibility, they lose subsidized housing eligibility, they lose SNAP eligibility.  Mean-testing produces a disincentive for work that is not present under a UBI.  The poor aren't so stupid as to discount the value of their benefits they'd lose when considering taking a job.

It isn;t the means testing, it is how the transition is made from dependent to freedom. Freedom requires you suddenly make enough to afford housing, medical care, food, utilities, etc. It just doesn't work that way in real life. You don't suddenly just transition from making entry level wages to $20/hr or more. Not in any workplace I have ever been in.

Some employers offer health insurance (not all) but even that generally comes at a cost to the employee. Still, the difference in what one needs to make to make up the increase in out of pocket costs makes that step a cliff to scale, not just a step to self reliance. Make those steps a little smaller and the transition would be less of a disincentive.