WSJ in favor of univ. basic income.

[scaredyclassic]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586?cx_navSource=cx_picks&cx_tag=collabctx&cx_artPos=1

[FlyerInHi]

The business community is finally realizing that consumers need money to spend and create growth.

[spdrun]

Growth is a cancer. Too many people, consuming too much already. Not sustainable. Maybe others have realized this, and Zika is by design, not an accident.

[scaredyclassic]

ubi, not about growth but incentive zing better social decisions per article

[moneymaker]

Father’s are already held accountable for their kids, as many know, child support is alive and well. Who could live on 10k a year? Not in CA, maybe somewhere else. It might get people to leave CA for greener pastures. Where would this money come from? From people that have worked their whole lives expecting SS when they retire? Basically another switch and bait program from the government to shake things up, we will see if it works elsewhere.

[livinincali]

I’m not sure how I feel about a UBI. It’s just redistribution at it’s core. If you tax me $13K and give me back $6500 or just tax me $6500 it’s the same. Maybe psychologically one is easier to sell than the other but the net result is the same. No strings attached welfare is probably a good thing if people acted rationally but if people acted rationally there would be no need for food stamps.

In you list of priorities food should probably be number 1 followed by shelter and utilities and yet we are told that kids are going hungry. On almost any minimum wage budget you should be able to find money for food and shelter. You might not have anything to pay the cell phone bill, the cable bill, the day out to the movies, but you should be able to eat. Yet we apparently have families and people that can’t figure that out, so we need food stamps. Is it just an easier sell to the public, or are people really that stupid. I don’t know, but if people really are that stupid then you certainly can’t adopt a UBI.

[Hobie]

This will eliminate protected classes and the political power garnered by politicians and the recipients. Won’t fly.

And why do you tell someone after they have blown there ‘allocation’ and they are starving?

All these social programs sound good on paper but never work in practice.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=Hobie]This will eliminate protected classes and the political power garnered by politicians and the recipients. Won’t fly.

And why do you tell someone after they have blown there ‘allocation’ and they are starving?

All these social programs sound good on paper but never work in practice.[/quote]

Why wouldn’t it work? Direct deposit semi monthly.
When people run out, they wait til the next deposit.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=scaredyclassic]ubi, not about growth but incentive zing better social decisions per article[/quote]

Yeah. Considering all the current social costs, including criminal enforcement, ubi would be cheaper and result in a richer society. People would consume more on goods and services thus improving the economy. Combine that with legalization of marijuana and cuts in military spending.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
Yeah. Considering all the current social costs, including criminal enforcement, ubi would be cheaper and result in a richer society. People would consume more on goods and services thus improving the economy. Combine that with legalization of marijuana and cuts in military spending.[/quote]

I don’t understand why you think UBI would be cheaper and also result in people consuming more goods and services. If it’s cheaper then the government is spending less money. Therefore those that receive government money would get less and consume less. I don’t see how it does anything then change who the winners and losers are. The only way I see it resulting in more consumption is if the savings rate goes down in aggregate. I.e. we take money from people who save money and give it to people that spend money.

[FlyerInHi]

There will be more money spent on goods and services because people will use the transfer payments to spend. Less money will to prisons and defense contractors.

Assuming the same amount of money, put that in the hands of consumers and you have more spending, plus compounding growth resulting from it.

You should be happy, because spending will done by consumers, taking the government out of the equation.

Granted, there will need to be reforms so that State and Federal governments collect taxes and efficiently distribute UBI. But it can done with little friction thanks to computers.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]There will be more money spent on goods and services because people will use the transfer payments to spend. Less money will to prisons and defense contractors.

Assuming the same amount of money, put that in the hands of consumers and you have more spending, plus compounding growth resulting from it.

You should be happy, because spending will done by consumers, taking the government out of the equation.

Granted, there will need to be reforms so that State and Federal governments collect taxes and efficiently distribute UBI. But it can done with little friction thanks to computers.[/quote]Um, FIH, if people “spend” all their UBI on consumables, how are they going to live every month and eat? $10K doesn’t go very far, ESP in CA! What am I missing, here?

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=bearishgurl] Um, FIH, if people “spend” all their UBI on consumables, how are they going to live every month and eat? $10K doesn’t go very far, ESP in CA! What am I missing, here?[/quote]

UBI is the minimum security blanket. People can still work and earn more. When people feel secure, they spend more into the real economy.

China is trying to do that with health care, minimum wages, etc… Basically what we did with New Deal and Great Society. UBI would be going to the next level.

Granted, there is an optimal level. We need to experiment and find that level.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=livinincali] The only way I see it resulting in more consumption is if the savings rate goes down in aggregate. I.e. we take money from people who save money and give it to people that spend money.[/quote]

Sounds like you’re acknowledging that taxing the rich and redistributing that money to the poorest would result in economic growth (assuming there’s little friction). Incidentally, rich people may pay higher taxes but they will earn it back in income from their businesses. Win-win.

Concentration at the top 1% is very bad for the economy because those people don’t spend. They park money in real estate. That squeezes the lower classes who have no money left to spend on goods and services.

[Hobie]

This is all just fine for fireside chatting. For all the reasons already mentioned and many more it goes against all practical and the moral fabric of America. Social programs like welfare and other transfer payments were originally intended as a safety net not a lifestyle.

[Author]

Posts