When has UBI actually every been tried? I don't think any trials really qualify as "Universal".
IMO the universal part is the hard part and changes it drastically. Compared to a small limited trial of giving people money, where does it all come from when it's actually universal? And what are the effects on the overall economy when it's universal?
Yeah, many of the quoted examples miss the “universal” part:
> recurring cash relief to low-income residents for 2 years
> Finland launched a program to give €560 ($616) a month to 2,000 unemployed citizens
> doled out monthly unconditional sums of $500 to 125 low-income participants for two years
My contention with UBI is that if you give cash to everybody, it ends up being largely a wealth transfer to the rent seekers in society who can just raise their prices because more cash is now chasing the same amount of supply.
This is why you should couple UBI with an eye-wateringly (90-95%) high tax on Land rents, (i.e, the value of the unimproved raw resource. "Land" is more than just plots of terrain: Mineral, Water, and Wildlife/Fishing rights - along with radio spectrum, etc all fall into this category.) Improvements and value-adds from human activity remain profitable, gatekeeping access to resources is not.
Economically speaking, your ability to compete for the extra disposable income is the same as anyone else's, but that money originated in the taxed rent from the Land you control, and any elasticity in demand for your Land caused by the increase in cash running around is priced in - if more people need what you have, your taxes increase along with it.
What remains for you to profit from is what service or value you add above and beyond the market value of the underlying Land.
One form of UBI is essentially a negative income tax rate for people making below a certain line.
As more and more jobs get automated away, we will either become a society of wage slaves with a small upper class controlling trillions (wait a minute...) or we will distribute the benefits of an automated society to all people.
A lot of it is pretty hand-wavy and I'm not sure how legit it is. I'm posting it because they claim it won't cause taxes to increase for the majority of people. Instead, it comes from mainly corporate taxes and other sources.
Of course, it seems likely that this just passes on the cost to ordinary people in the form of increased costs for goods and services. As for inflationary effects, I'm not qualified to say.
It's already the former. Have a look at all of the homeless Americans and sleeping in cars borderline working poor in shit gig economy jobs working for crumbs. It's a result of decades of political corruption and apathy following widespread, cult belief in "effortless" meritocracy and trickledown Reaganomics.
It doesn't depend on how it's funded. It's a simple mechanics: once the word gets out that everybody is getting free money then all the companies raise their prices, trying to capture that money, because why wouldn't they?
Greedflation already exists without any type of UBI in place. UBI is not meant to combat greedflation. You're right to be worried about greedflation, but being against UBI because greedflation exists simply doesn't follow.
Alaska has had UBI for a while. It has been studied up and down. Studies show since implementing it, poverty has been reduced, crime is down. I haven't seen anything suggesting it encourages greedflation. You are making this claim about UBI, but the difference is you aren't qualifying it beyond with what appears to be your personal thoughts on the matter.
If you mean the Alaska Permanent Fund, according to wikipedia:
> The amount of each payment is based upon a five-year average of the Permanent Fund's performance and varies widely depending on the stock market and many other factors.
> The lowest individual dividend payout was $331.29 in 1984 and the highest was $3,284 in 2022.
That's not what people are generally talking about with "basic income" - it's not anywhere near enough to meet basic needs, and it's not reliable due to the fluctuations.
I agree with you on this, and I think the best reference point on the question of greedflation specifically would be that pensions exist and yet pensioners often get discounts.
Look at Poland since 2015. We don't have UBI per se, but we have uncoditional handouts of free money to families with children, which goes to about 4 millions of families (so, like half of them).
And while the programme is not universal nor the handouts are very big (around $200 per child per month) the costs are astronomical and it’s already driven inflation in the country (along with other social programs). I can’t imagine what would happen to economy if this was expanded.
This is a good point, although all of the trials I can think of have had some element of reducing the means-testing, or reducing criteria for inclusion, which I think is valuable in testing the UBI concept.
IMO the universal part is the hard part and changes it drastically. Compared to a small limited trial of giving people money, where does it all come from when it's actually universal? And what are the effects on the overall economy when it's universal?