I think the nuance here is that the income in Universal Basic Income is a stand-in for "everyone's basic needs should be met". But income doesn't guarantee that, because prices go up and down for a variety of reasons.
What people actually want is Universal Basic Buying Power. I should be able to get a roof over my head, get food and an education. It sucks that it's this complicated but in terms of government policy sometimes UBI is cash handouts, other times it should be supply-side investments, and as the original commenter laid out, none of these research experiments are running that experiment.
I mean, even that's something of a misconception. Let's start with an axiom: there are enough people and resources, both locally and universally, to provide every human being with enough to eat every day and a safe place to sleep every night (acts of God notwithstanding). That's an objective truth; technologically and logistically, we are there as a civilization. So a guarantee of access to something that already exists is a matter of policy, not economy. The doomsayers are just wrong on this one, unless the first act of UBI recipients would be to burn farms, blow up the rail network, and release pests into vacant housing, or something (though I don't doubt that this scenario is precisely what they expect; after so many studies, it's safe to call anti-UBI rhetoric a rationalization of unsubstantiated class hysteria).
And we have been producing enough to feed and house everyone for about 40 years now. Henry Ford introduced 5 day workweek and with the productivity trend we should be working one day a week by now.
It is not happening because in eyes of capitalism a person is only valuable and accepted if they have an occupation that produce value, whether needed or not.
Consequence of that, 50% of workforce is “bullshit jobs” made to keep people employed, like marketing, finance and such.
Because people sadly are brainwashed to be working from cradle to grave, it will take few generations for UBI to become unconditional and part of life, like we have with free healthcare (not you, U.S.).
In a similar vein: a lot of studies have shown that most of the cost of a UBI could usually be paid for by two existing expenditures, the first being current welfare programs, such as employment insurance, welfare, disability benefits, etc., and the second being the cost of the time and labor the government has to pay for to ensure that the programs in point one only go to a limited subset of people who qualify.
In other words, we're spending so much on making sure that most people don't get social programs that we could fund a huge chunk of just giving those people social programs instead.
Likewise, we spend more on policing and jailing individuals convicted of minor crimes than it would cost to implement social programs to reduce the amount of crime in the first place; the US spends more on their medical system per capita than most (any?) other countries because it all goes to insurance companies whose job is, ostensibly, to pay for medical treatment, but who spend a large amount of it on departments dedicated to not paying for medical treatment.
Studies have shown that a lot of people (mostly right-leaning individuals) would rather go without something that could benefit them (e.g. healthcare, UBI, etc.) if it meant that people they see as "undeserving" (the poor, the homeless, immigrants) also didn't get it, so there are a lot of people out there who would rather spend money keeping people from having positive outcomes than spend less money to give those people positive outcomes.
> Universal Basic Buying Power. I should be able to get a roof over my head, get food and an education. It sucks that it's this complicated but in terms of government policy sometimes UBI is cash handouts, other times it should be supply-side investments,
I think AI could make UBI + moving to a lower cost of living much more appealing if it solves education and healthcare.
The housing is solved for by market forces.
First tier, high cost of living should be for high earners, singles or childless people, they should pay more taxes while second tier areas should offer UBI, and should generally subsidise people having children and augment the kind of high grade services first tier locations have, especially education and healthcare with AI. Or at least that's 90% of the reason me and many people I know don't move to smaller towns
> First tier, high cost of living should be for high earners, singles or childless people, they should pay more taxes while second tier areas should offer UBI, and should generally subsidise people having children
That seems unfair to me. Why should singles and childless people subsidise people with children?
> Why should singles and childless people subsidise people with children?
My point was mainly that that kind of first tier city would attract those kind of people, not specifically that they should be targeted.
If you lived in a 2nd tier zone you shouldn't pay extra in taxes even if you're childless.
But specifically to your question, I do think that it's fair that childless people should pay more taxes, because having a stable population is a requirement for a stable society and single/childless people aren't doing their part.
That duty can be offloaded to parents with more children, but they should be compensated for that.
You can frame it whatever you want -- they pay more taxes, parents pay less taxes, parents get tax rebates, parents get higher UBI per child, the outcome is the same.
I do think that first tier cities leach and profit from the work of the parents, educators of the people who migrate there (and generally the whole area -- it takes a village to raise a child), profit from exorbitant property taxes so, I think the only way to solve this curse is higher taxes (if it's required) on those areas and subsidized living in less desirable places -- provided that those 2nd tier places produce competent citizens.
Progressive income tax already does this "taxing first-tier cities a higher percentage" thing. The tax bands are the same in all cities, so people living in the cheaper, low pay provincial cities already pay less tax as a proportion of income. This effect is very stark in comparing London to the rest of the UK.
Why should singles and childless people subsidise people with children?
children are the future of our society. even in today's system, children will be the ones paying your pension when you retire. putting that burden on parents alone is what is unfair. how would you like your pension to be measured based on the number of children you raised? maybe if you have no children you shouldn't get any pension at all?
do you expect not to get any pension at all and just live on your own savings? do you live on a farm growing your own food?
you can't live in this society without relying on others, and they can't live without relying on you. and unless you want humanity to die out, future generations need our support.
i was using it as a general term for whatever money you receive after you retire except personal investments or savings. i could not find out how 401ks work, specifically i did not find out whether 401k works like any other pension scheme or not. the wikipedia page on pensions does not say that 401k is not a pension, therefore i figure it is included in the definition.
i just checked the 401k page, and it says: a 401(k) plan is an employer-sponsored, defined-contribution, personal pension (savings) account.
so it's a pension.
but what we call it doesn't really matter. more important is the question if the payout depends on future generations paying in. in my brief search i could not tell whether the 401k is protected against that or if it even can be protected. but if it is i'll have to retract my claim. my apologies.
> I should be able to get a roof over my head, get food and an education.
I have a theory that every nation with a natural advantage in some product range should make it available as a birthright.
For example, Finland's relative endowment/strength is forestry products and paper production. So every citizen should be able to claim a monthly allowance, at nominal charge or for free, of TP, paper towels, and writing paper / notebooks. Contracted by the government via a bid process.
What people actually want is Universal Basic Buying Power. I should be able to get a roof over my head, get food and an education. It sucks that it's this complicated but in terms of government policy sometimes UBI is cash handouts, other times it should be supply-side investments, and as the original commenter laid out, none of these research experiments are running that experiment.