Regrading various UBI plans

 So, rereading what I wrote in which I graded various UBI plans a few weeks ago, I was kind of dissatisfied with how the grading came out, but at the same time, I had no issues with my metrics themselves. Looking at it now, I realize the problem was I was too harsh on taking points off for grading certain aspects of my plan. I would nitpick minor flaws and then take 5-10 points off, when perhaps they only deserved a 2-8 point deduction instead. I mean, after all, if I think something deserves a B, but then i give it 15/20, I'm actually giving it a C. So I should weight my grading in line with what I think the metrics deserve on a grading scale, with say, 15/20 being the equivalent of a 75/100, etc. Being too harsh is why so many plans I would've thought would deserve Bs were getting Cs and Ds. 

So that said, let's do a do over. 

My own plan

Is it a true UBI? - Yes, 20/20

Is the UBI at or above the poverty line? - Yes, 20/20

Is this plan regressive? - No, 20/20

Is the funding sound? - Eh, I tried my best but might have made slight miscalculations and errors - 20/20

Does this plan guarantee the right to say no? - Yes, 20/20

Overall- 98/100 (A+)

Andrew Yang's plan

Is it a true UBI - Mostly, but the breaking of unconditionality to avoid cutting welfare and forcing people to choose is a crappy way to deal with the welfare issue, 16/20

Is it at or above the poverty line? - Adult is right below, no child benefit, 14/20

Is it regressive? - Eh, some aspects could be improved but it's not the end of the world, 15/20

Is the funding sound? - Eh, there's a $900 billion hole, meaning 1/3 of his UBI isn't properly accounted for, so he loses 1/3 the points, 13/20

Does it provide the freedom to say no? - Mostly, but without a child benefit could leave some dependent on the labor force. 16/20

Overall- 73/100 (C)

Only a slight uplift on score,  but enough to bump it up to the C range where it deserves. The fact is, while I was a little harsh on some things the first time around, looking at my reasoning, I believe my scores were largely justified. Yang does need to fix his funding a bit. He does do some regressive things and force people to choose between welfare and UBI. His main plan does lack a child benefit. I mean these are all flaws, and I kind of feel like my ratings were largely fair. Yang's plan is messy and IMO makes several amateur mistakes which can and should be fixed. Still, it's not D level, it's a C.

Allan Sheahan's plan

Is it a true UBI - Yes, 20/20

Is it at or above the poverty line? - Accounting for inflation, yes, but the child benefit could be higher, 18/20

Is it regressive? - Most cuts seem to come from welfare or existing tax credits, with him being fairly harsh and draconian in my opinion at times. 12/20

Is the funding sound? - Looks like it. 20/20

Would it guarantee the right to say no - Yes, for the most part, 19/20

Overall - 89/100 (B+)

This time I was more harsh on the right to say no by virtue of the smaller child benefit. Still i only removed one point because it wasn't a huge deal. His plan is fine, but it is regressive and it does take too many existing benefits to people away. Not just welfare was disintegrated, but stuff like pensions too if I recall. That didn't seem fair and I felt like I had to be hard on him there. Still, solid plan.

New schools' plan

Is it a true UBI - It's an NIT, which isn't really a UBI but has the effects of a UBI - 13/20

Is it at or above the poverty line? - It's literally right below it. 19/20

Is it regressive? - Due to its NIT nature, it does impose much of the effective tax burden on the poor in the clawback, which otherwise keeps costs down and accounts for roughly 70% of the funding based on what UBI plans normally cost. 15/20

They didn't explain how they would raise the rest of the money, so I'm gonna take points off like I did for Yang's plan. 13/20

Does it give people the freedom to say no? - On paper, yes. But I am leery the NIT format will maintain it over time and it will be undermined and turned into welfare - 15/20

Overall- 75/100 (C)

This one gets a well deserved category to the C category. It has some issues, the NIT format makes it more fragile in my mind, and it did have issues with regressiveness and not explaining aspects of funding well. But it is a decent proposal and this seems about right.

Oshan Jarow's proposal

Is it a true UBI? - Once again, NIT, 13/20

Is it at or above the poverty line? - Adult benefit is, but no child benefit. 15/20

Is it regressive? - Yep, 33% clawback rate, comparable to the other NIT plan, which would account for most of its funding. 15/20

Is the funding sound? - From what I can tell, yes, 20/20

Does it give people the freedom to say no? - No paper yes, but like other NIT plans, is potentially open to sabotage in the future, also, lack of child benefit could keep parents chained to the labor force - 12/20

Overall - 75/100 (C)

Like the other NIT plan it gets a C for its various flaws. The new school plan seemed a bit better due to the child benefit, but the explanation for funding was worse

Scott Santens' proposal

Is it a true UBI? - Yes, 20/20

Is it at or above poverty line? - 110% of the poverty line to offset a 10% VAT, 20/20

Is it regressive? - LVT aspect is divorced from income and ability to pay, meaning some people who shouldn't get hit with a major tax bill, will be hit with a major tax bill, 15/20

Is the funding sound? - Mostly, I wonder if the siegniorage reform aspect would work, but other than that, pretty solid. 18/20

Does it guarantee the right to say no? - Eh, LVT is questionable. Still, given a median home value of $300k, with 30% of that in land value ($90k), a 5% tax would amount to $4500, which is 1/3 of a UBI. It could keep some in poverty without a job or other liquidity to pay the tax. I dont get the fixation some have on LVT. it just turns the government into a landlord, which I see as opposed to indepentarian philosophy. Still, I admit I came down a little too hard last time. 1/3 of UBI disappears, so 1/3 of the points do too. 13/20

Overall - 86/100 (B)

A slight bump, and again, this plan does deserve criticism. LVT is, IMO, a horrible way to do UBI if you want to guarantee peoples' freedom to say no, but it's not as brutally bad as I made it out to be last time.

Evaluating shifts in scoring based on my new metric

My plan - 97 -> 98 (+1)

Yang's plan - 69->73 (+4)

Sheahan's plan - 90->89 (-1)

New school's plan - 68-> 75 (+7)

Jarow's plan - 68-> 75 (+7)

Santens' plan - 82->86 (+4)

Average- +3.67

All in all, regrading them did bump scores up on average by roughly 1/3 of a letter grade, enough to move the Ds into Cs. The plans that benefitted least were the ones that already scored highly, which isn't much of a surprise when I think about it. The plans that benefitted the most were the NIT plans that I was overly harsh on. NIT gets enough crap for various reasons from points taken off, and I didn't need to give the equivalent of a failing grade when a C or D would do more nicely. True UBI plans that had flaws like Santens and Yang's benefitted a bit too.

All in all, I really had trouble arguing with my previous reasonings for the scores when I read them though. If a plan does bad things to welfare, or imposes a 30-50% clawback rate when a 20% one like mine would suffice, I'm going to be critical of that. If the plan does not, in my mind, guarantee the right to say no, or doesn't keep people out of poverty, I'm going to be critical of that. If it has the weaknesses of NIT, I'm going to be critical of that. If a plan has problems, I'm going to be blunt about what I think those problems were. Perhaps my first attempt to grade these plans was a bit hard, but still, the flaws are flaws, and I struggle to argue against my own logic for why those plans deserve a sub par score. Still, none of the plans above really deserved Ds. I think the grades are more appropriate. UBI plans with relatively minor flaws got Bs, Yang's, with more serious flaws, got a C, and the NIT plans also got raised to C. None of these plans really deserved a D or an F. Even the worst of them are solid plans, even if flawed. So that said, I think this new approach works a bit better.