# Universal Basic Income: An argument for wealth redistribution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 13, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704 "2009-10-13T21:31:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/61 "2009-10-15T14:01:18Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > That is the whole point. EVERYONE gets it from Bill Gates on down. Hence you do away with all the bureaucracy involved in working out if you are or are not entitled to a particular benefit, which a significant percentage of the welfare budget goes on. That seems odd. You will have to tax me for more than six thousand to cover the salaries at the IRS, and to get the money for everyone who doesn’t earn anything. You can save overhead by means testing the six thousand. Plus you are going to run into the problem that different parts of the country have different costs of living. So either everyone gets enough to live on in San Francisco, even if they live in North Dakota, or people in San Francisco don’t get enough to live on. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/62 "2009-10-15T17:44:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That seems odd. You will have to tax me for more than six thousand to cover the salaries at the IRS, and to get the money for everyone who doesn’t earn anything. You can save overhead by means testing the six thousand. How you work out taxes is totally unrelated. But by adding that means test you are adding two huge flaws to the system of welfare: - You are incentivising people not to get of their asses and earn some cash, the guy who goes out and finds a job suddenly fails the means test and loses his $6k, the guy who sits at home smoking dope and watching cartoons does not. - You are adding a huge overhead by having the means test. A massive percentage (I don’t have a number but would be interested if anyone does) of the welfare budget goes on the machinery to check whether you qualify for the benefits you are getting. Additionally I’m sure you’d find that a great deal of people would means test themselves by simple not being assed to pick up the benefit. If you are $50k a year you bet you’re gonna be assed, if your on $250k a year are you ? > [@Shodan](#): > > Plus you are going to run into the problem that different parts of the country have different costs of living. So either everyone gets enough to live on in San Francisco, even if they live in North Dakota, or people in San Francisco don’t get enough to live on. Actually I pointed this out as one of the flaws of the system earlier in the thread 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/63 "2009-10-15T17:58:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This plan just seems really inefficient just for the sake of being unnecessarily simple. Why is simplicity a virtue? I have a deep seated personal hatred for paper work and filling out forms. Anybody who has ever applied for government aid should know what I’m talking about. Simplicity really **is** a virtue. 🙂 It’s easier for the benefits to go to everyone who needs it if it doesn’t need to be applied for (beyond the initial sign-up, which could be at birth). Setting up an enormous bureaucracy and labyrinthine regulations to determine who “deserves” help could end up costing more, less people receiving the help who need it, than simply direct depositing money into everyone’s bank account. ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/64 "2009-10-15T18:01:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Plus you are going to run into the problem that different parts of the country have different costs of living. So either everyone gets enough to live on in San Francisco, even if they live in North Dakota, or people in San Francisco don’t get enough to live on. Actually, I wonder if the Basic Income idea is actually better at dealing with this problem than other kinds of welfare. Assuming that the people who are most affected by the change are those at the margin - they want to work but welfare gives them a disincentive (as described by Griffin). The marginal cost of finding (and creating) employment would go down so it would actually be easier for those people under the new system. San Francisco would become a land of opportunity. It would suck for the lazy bums (and for the genuinely unable to work, of course) - they would have to all migrate to North Dakota to survive. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/65 "2009-10-15T18:06:12Z")
> [@Sound Mind](#): > > She badgered me just to give her the money, I refused and she got really nasty about it and I gave up on trying to help her. > > I am a good person but helping people that won’t help themselves is really hard. It’s easy to focus on the people who fritter their money away, but I think it’s even more unjust to have government bureaucrats determine who is using their money wisely and who is using it unwisely. If someone prefers to spend their Basic Income on Neon Signs and other useless crap and live in their car, then that’s their choice. I hope they’ll eventually wise up. But if that’s their idea of happiness, who am I to say they are wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/66 "2009-10-15T18:08:39Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > How you work out taxes is totally unrelated. But by adding that means test you are adding two huge flaws to the system of welfare: > > - You are incentivising people not to get of their asses and earn some cash, the guy who goes out and finds a job suddenly fails the means test and loses his $6k, the guy who sits at home smoking dope and watching cartoons does not. > - You are adding a huge overhead by having the means test. A massive percentage (I don’t have a number but would be interested if anyone does) of the welfare budget goes on the machinery to check whether you qualify for the benefits you are getting. Plus, you are removing a big incentive for people anywhere the means test limit to earn income off the books. It gets worse, actually. Since you don’t want an income level where making $5 more means you get $6K less, you will have to phase out the benefit gradually with income. That makes it even more complicated. And simple = cheap. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/67 "2009-10-15T18:25:44Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > It’s the same effect of dual-income households. Only the first wave of women leaving the role of housewife to join the workforce created a financial advantage. Now real estate, car prices, etc have adjusted to the fact that most households have 2 working parents. I once had a fun discussion at work about how great it would be if a pill was invented that eliminated the need to sleep…or would cut sleep needed to half an hour a day or something. I pointed out that, while this would be a good thing, that they would end up working 16 hour days. They argued with me at first…and I pointed this exact thing out…housewives joining the workforce. After a few years in a sleep-not-needed society…you would be pretty much forced to work 16 hours a day to keep your same lifestyle. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/68 "2009-10-15T18:29:27Z")
> [@bri1600bv](#): > > The bottom 50% pays basically no taxes. [sneeze] ahhhh ahhhhh ahhhhhh _ **bullshit** _\*\* [/sneeze] ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/69 "2009-10-15T18:30:38Z")
> [@BlinkingDuck](#): > > I pointed out that, while this would be a good thing, that they would end up working 16 hour days. They argued with me at first…and I pointed this exact thing out…housewives joining the workforce. > > After a few years in a sleep-not-needed society…you would be pretty much forced to work 16 hours a day to keep your same lifestyle. That doesn’t make sense to me. A person working 8 hours a day should be able to produce just as much “stuff” as he was before. Perhaps more people would work longer days because they had more time available, but that only means you’ll be earning less relative to others, not in absolute terms. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/70 "2009-10-15T18:32:29Z")
> [@BlinkingDuck](#): > > I once had a fun discussion at work about how great it would be if a pill was invented that eliminated the need to sleep…or would cut sleep needed to half an hour a day or something. > > I pointed out that, while this would be a good thing, that they would end up working 16 hour days. They argued with me at first…and I pointed this exact thing out…housewives joining the workforce. > > After a few years in a sleep-not-needed society…you would be pretty much forced to work 16 hours a day to keep your same lifestyle. I suspect at least a part of this is what could be called “lifestyle inflation”. We seem to _require_ a lot more fancy _stuff_ these days. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/71 "2009-10-15T18:41:29Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > That doesn’t make sense to me. A person working 8 hours a day should be able to produce just as much “stuff” as he was before. Perhaps more people would work longer days because they had more time available, but that only means you’ll be earning less relative to others, not in absolute terms. I could be wrong…but lets look at housing as an example. Let’s also say a new, cheap miracle drug was mass produced which eliminated the need to sleep. At first, you could work a normal workday. However, a significant number of people will work extra hours because they like work, or want to increase their lifestyle etc. They now have more money. This means more money is available for these folks to buy (as per the example) houses. This means people will bid higher for houses and prices will rise. Rents would climb as well because houses are worth more. So, if you insisted on working a normal workday…you would find your salary not being able to afford as much a house or rent. You would be forced to lower your standard of living or work more hours. Now, the above is assuming that you are paid the same. In all likelihood, your $ per hour would probably drop…as there is a vast increase in the labor pool and so downward pressure on salaries. I can see this probably happened with women entering the workforce…how many average Joe people do you know that have one working adult, one at home and have a nice house? Today, it takes 2 Joe working stiffs to afford that modest house. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/72 "2009-10-15T18:43:12Z")
As far as the argument goes that people will kill themselves with drugs, if we as a society truly cared about saving people from themselves we should ban tobacco, because tobacco kills 25 times more people than all illegal drugs _[combined](http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30)_. 435,000 versus 17,000 in the U.S every year. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/73 "2009-10-15T18:47:26Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I suspect at least a part of this is what could be called “lifestyle inflation”. We seem to _require_ a lot more fancy _stuff_ these days. While this is partially true, I don’t think it is 100%. My wife and I recently downsized in our housing. We have a very ‘lower middle class’ townhome in a decent suburb of a major city. I, myself, make in the upper 15% of salary in the U.S. Even then, the price of the place is about double my yearly income. Now, this might not sound like much, but the rule of thumb in the past (when I was a young whippersnapper) is that you really shouldn’t spend more than 2x annual income to house…and no more then 2.5x. Looking at the median income of Joe grunt in the area…and if both Joe and Jo grunt work and make that salary…they would be within 2.5x but more than 2x annual income to house…and this housing is considered LOWER MIDDLE CLASS. No way that could be possible if the norm for working families was 1 working adult. Housing prices would not have increased that much. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/74 "2009-10-15T19:02:15Z")
> [@BlinkingDuck](#): > > I could be wrong…but lets look at housing as an example. Let’s also say a new, cheap miracle drug was mass produced which eliminated the need to sleep. > > At first, you could work a normal workday. However, a significant number of people will work extra hours because they like work, or want to increase their lifestyle etc. I think that would be somewhat mitigated by keeping the 40 hour workweek and overtime rules in place. If employers have to pay you 150% of normal wage for every hour worked over 40 hours, it’s less likely that people would work that much more. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/75 "2009-10-15T19:03:22Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I think that would be somewhat mitigated by keeping the 40 hour workweek and overtime rules in place. If employers have to pay you 150% of normal wage for every hour worked over 40 hours, it’s less likely that people would work that much more. ? Just lower the normal wage…plus many positions are salaried. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/76 "2009-10-15T19:08:49Z")
To avoid hijack on the sleep thing: > **[A new miracle drug eliminates need for sleep...is workday now 16 hours?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=536087)** > > To avoid hijacking this thread further http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11667113&posted=1#post11667113 Let’s say a new, cheap drug is invented where everyone no longer needs sleep (or sleep is cut down to 30 min a day). My... ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/77 "2009-10-15T19:10:42Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > How do you address my objection that money itself is often not the best solution to the problem of poverty - and that in some cases it’s going to worsen people’s problems. Let’s face the facts, if the reason a person is poor is because they’re addicted to crack, handing them six thousand dollars in cash is more likely to kill them than to help them. > > In my opinion, you’d do a lot more good by spending that trillion dollars on soup kitchens and homeless shelters and free clinics and schools and rehab centers rather than just dumping it into everyone’s hands. It would be easier to dedicate yourself to low-paid non-profit work and other volunteerism if you have a guaranteed income to supplement it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/78 "2009-10-15T19:13:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That seems odd. You will have to tax me for more than six thousand to cover the salaries at the IRS, and to get the money for everyone who doesn’t earn anything. You can save overhead by means testing the six thousand. > > Plus you are going to run into the problem that different parts of the country have different costs of living. So either everyone gets enough to live on in San Francisco, even if they live in North Dakota, or people in San Francisco don’t get enough to live on. > > Regards, > Shodan Why should we guarantee people the right to live in San Francisco? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/79 "2009-10-16T04:05:09Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s easy to focus on the people who fritter their money away, but I think it’s even more unjust to have government bureaucrats determine who is using their money wisely and who is using it unwisely. > > If someone prefers to spend their Basic Income on Neon Signs and other useless crap and live in their car, then that’s their choice. I hope they’ll eventually wise up. But if that’s their idea of happiness, who am I to say they are wrong? You’re the person giving them the money, that’s who. If people want to spend their own money on neon signs, that’s their business. But when other people are giving them the money, they can set conditions on how it’s spent. And if you don’t like the conditions, you’re free to refuse the money. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704/80 "2009-10-16T05:04:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You’re the person giving them the money, that’s who. If people want to spend their own money on neon signs, that’s their business. But when other people are giving them the money, they can set conditions on how it’s spent. And if you don’t like the conditions, you’re free to refuse the money. If we’re put restrictions on how they spend their money, we will of neccesity have to have a bureaucracy to check up on their purchases, and we’ll likely spend even more money on the bureaucracy than if we just let them buy the neon signs in the first place. It may be possible, through scrimping and saving, for someone living on Basic Income to buy themselves something nice every now and then. Just like a person on food stamps might live off just rice and beans for a week so he can get lobster once, if someone can manage to afford something non-essential, we shouldn’t begrudge them that. I think if someone actually does run into a serious gambling or drug abuse problem, the Basic Income will not be enough to sustain them. They’ll either get so desperate that they check themselves into rehab, or they steal in order to get their fix. At that point, they’ll eventually get caught and we can put restrictions on them afterwards. But until someone is proven to be mentally incapable of handling money, the default assumption should be that they are able to manage their own affairs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-basic-income-an-argument-for-wealth-redistribution/513704.md?page=5)