Universal Basic Income (California...of course...)

[BehindBlueI's]

UBI is not need based - Universal = everyone gets it. UBI does away with the "need" or "disability" arguments and in fact does away with the bureaucracy that manages the programs. The theory of UBI is everyone gets the UNIVERSAL basic income and if you want more then you work.

I am not saying I agree with this but UBI is not the safety nets that many are referring to in the comments.

It is a safety net, one that's always present. You work for the next Enron? You still have UBI. Broke your ankle? Still have UBI, etc. How "Universal" it is depends on the individual plan. Many of the "negative tax" UBIs phase out as your taxable income hits certain levels ($100k/yr+ generally).

[ranger]

Definition - "Universal basic income (UBI) is a model for providing all citizens of a country or other geographic area with a given sum of money, regardless of their income, resources or employment status. The purpose of the UBI is to prevent or reduce poverty and increase equality among citizens."

[BehindBlueI's]

Definition - "Universal basic income (UBI) is a model for providing all citizens of a country or other geographic area with a given sum of money, regardless of their income, resources or employment status. The purpose of the UBI is to prevent or reduce poverty and increase equality among citizens."

The definition fails to capture the wide variety of proposals and experiments that fall under the UBI umbrella. None that I'm aware of are truly "universal". Children are citizens, but do not receive a UBI under most plans (although some do provide for a percentage of an "adult portion" for juveniles). How current retirees on Social Security (or the country's equivalent) are handled varies from plan to plan. Some have wage cut offs, some do not. I suppose we could argue the semantics of if a negative tax is actually a UBI, but I doubt either of us is really interested on if a UBI that grants the payment but then retrieves it in taxes is substantially different from a program that doesn't give the payment and then take it back. The end result is the same.

[txdpd]

I suppose that I’m having a problem with the math. When we look at the nation’s longest war, the War on Poverty, over $22 TRILLION dollars have been spent (excluding Medicare and Social Security) with no change in the poverty rate during that 50 years.

Various enterprises have ways of adapting to government subsidization and generally the assistance that was supposed to help people get ahead, lines the pocket of bottom feeders. It's hard for poor people to make much headway with government assistance if their day-to-day cost are being adjusted to account for that assistance. I'm not advocating for socialism or communism, but a free market without pricing controls is going to adjust prices to what the market can bear.

SNAP/Food stamps has been chasing inexplicably high food price inflation for the last 15 years. Rents will adjust to housing assistance to the point of rents barely affordable. The recent surge in housing prices is a major contributor to the rise in homelessness, poor people are simply priced out of the market. It's not just poor people. Colleges have adjusted prices to accommodate student loans and grants, and instead of making education affordable it's priced at what the market will bear. Prescription drug prices and medicare, etc etc etc.

Even if people are responsible with their UBI money, which I have doubts about, the free market will quickly adjust to the infusion of income and it'll be back business as usual in short order.

[Sensei]

Really? Because what you said was:



But, of course you *really* meant you used it because Stockton, not that the War on Poverty has had no effect. What I showed you is that poverty and the Poverty Rate are not the same thing. The government doubtlessly uses it, and uses it for the same reason the military used pushups/situps/running to measure combat readiness...it's easy to measure. The fact it doesn't actually measure what you're trying to measure is beside the point. The "Poverty Rate" is the APFT of economics. If you want to argue Poverty Rate, we're talking past each other because I'm addressing actual poverty.

Can you explain a bit more to me about how the Stockton experiment is about improving the poverty rate as the census defines it vs poverty? I mean, that's a simple accounting question. If it's counted as a wage, it reduces the poverty rate. If it is not counted as a wage, it has no affect on the poverty rate. Do you think that's what the experiment is about?

Can you also show me how the $500/month in Stockton was determined by using the Poverty Rate? Or am I misinterpreting your new claims?

I assumed that the $500/month in Stockton was based on the poverty rate because Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs has been hitting the talk show programs citing the fact that 1:4 Stocktonians (?word) live below the poverty line as a reason for why it’s needed. I think I heard him on NPR but perhaps it was MSLSD. If the CB’s definition of poverty sucks, then liberals need to stop using it in their justification for a UBI.

As far as showing me something, I’ve not see it. I do recall you telling me how you feel that the CB’s definition of poverty is a poor estimation of what you feel is real poverty, but you have not shown me a measurable alternative. Thus, to move this ball forward tell me how you want to measure real poverty. That way, we have an objective standard to see how this Stockton experiment works (or fails). Without a measurable definition, I fear that proponents of a UBI will perpetually hide behind the excuse that the current standards of measuring poverty are not capturing the wonderful effects of their policies.

[willie]

Eventually my attention span crashed so I probably missed a point or two in the thread. But, my wife and I have lived below our means throughout our lengthy marriage, and as teachers we certainly were not high wage earners. As a result of a frugal life style we saved enough money to supplement a meager retirement income. Hence we are not broke but would be had we not made a great effort to save for the future. I drive a 17 year old truck and wear cheap clothes. I bristle at the idea of subsidizing others, some of whom will remain impoverished despite government handouts.

[BJXDS]

The real issue here is NOT money or the lack of it, although it probably could and would help some get out of the hole of poverty. The problem is a lack of morals, education and work ethic. Throwing money at a problem does not always fix it. I am afraid it is much more complicated than that.

Look at the stories about, I hit the Lotto and now I am broke. Look at the number of educated people that make a living wage and over extend themselves with credit. I know, I know predatory lending is to blame for that! People were offered money they couldn't afford to pay back, but they took it, but it wasn't their fault.

We all want an easy answer with a quick fix, but there is not one.

[JohnO]

Money doesn't grow on trees. It has to be taken from someone in order to give it to someone else. Whether it is taken directly from someone's pocket or stolen from future generations it is a terrible idea. This is pure Socialism and we can easily see how wel that is working in Venezuela.

[BehindBlueI's]

I assumed that the $500/month in Stockton was based on the poverty rate because Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs has been hitting the talk show programs citing the fact that 1:4 Stocktonians (?word) live below the poverty line as a reason for why it’s needed

No, the $500 is not defined by the poverty rate. It would approach 50% of the current poverty rate, but not quite. It is, as best I can tell, a fairly arbitrary number based on available funds and the desired sample size. There is no methodology provided as to how they came by the number.

As far as showing me something, I’ve not see it. I do recall you telling me how you feel that the CB’s definition of poverty is a poor estimation of what you feel is real poverty...

Then go back and reread it. I didn't tell you how I feel, I gave you facts, which you are free to research yourself and verify or simply take me at my word. It's not a "feel".

As far as alternatives, there's a few ways economists measure it (and, btw, are pretty universal in their agreement the census poverty rate is garbage). Rather then reinvent the wheel, read:

A broad overview of an alternative:

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/h...asure-poverty/

and for a discussion of alternatives and the various pros and cons of the more common measurements:

http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/14/w...r-consumption/

Or if you want to go way down the rabbit hole, you can start looking at "multi-dimensional" measurements, which include things like infant mortality rates (an indication of poor nutrition and lack of access to health care)

Very broadly speaking, various income counting methods are the easiest to measure but the least reliable. Consumption is harder to measure, but more reliable and allows for regional differences (how much is spent on housing in NYC vs tiny town USA, which isn't counted in income-only methods). Multi-dimensional is, in theory, the most accurate but also the hardest to measure and the most open to interpretation (what's included, and how is it weighted? Is renter vs home owners weighted higher or lower than access to health care?)

As to which is "best" or which we should use to evaluate this experiment...I don't know and I doubt you or I are going to have the raw data and apply the methodology ourselves. We'll have to see what methodology the people running the experiment choose, and evaluate it from there.

[BehindBlueI's]

The real issue here is NOT money or the lack of it, although it probably could and would help some get out of the hole of poverty. The problem is a lack of morals, education and work ethic. Throwing money at a problem does not always fix it. I am afraid it is much more complicated than that.

Look at the stories about, I hit the Lotto and now I am broke. Look at the number of educated people that make a living wage and over extend themselves with credit. I know, I know predatory lending is to blame for that! People were offered money they couldn't afford to pay back, but they took it, but it wasn't their fault.

We all want an easy answer with a quick fix, but there is not one.

Look at the stories of people getting a Pell grant and going on to have a career that would otherwise have been out of reach if you just want to bat anecdotes back and forth. The notion that the poor are poor because they lack morals is...questionable. Lack work ethic? Again, questionable. Education, I'm with you on that one...but education requires resources to obtain without that dreaded 'socialism.' I don't think anyone would argue education among citizens is increased by publicly funded schools.

That said, I don't think UBI proponents are claiming it's a panacea or that it's a quick fix. SSI didn't completely eliminate poverty among the elderly, but it certainly reduced it. The goal isn't to ensure equal outcomes, there are always going to be people who will squander whatever resources they have regardless of income level, but to ensure a reasonable chance at economic mobility and a floor of income so that you have the opportunity to recover from poor choices or bad luck.