So, arguing with lefties about UBI is more frustrating than arguing with right wingers in my opinion. At least the right stands where it does, for better or for worse, on issues like UBI and will absolutely fight against it on moral grounds. But the left is more...insidious. When the left argues against UBI, they largely make these ridiculous arguments in practice that strawman the crap out of basic income and impose ridiculous purity tests on the concept that are impossible to satisfy. And I want to address these.
UBI will cause inflation!
The big kneejerk reaction is that UBI will cause inflation. First of all, this is ignorant as it doesn't understand what inflation is. Many of the critics just see UBI as injecting tons of money into the economy indiscriminately, when in reality, most plans have taxation. And while UBI might cause a little more of an aggregate demand bump as the poor tend to spend their income more than the rich, any idea that helps the lower classes like the minimum wage going up is going to do the same thing. If inflation is caused in part by the amount of money and in part by the velocity of that money, UBI, when funded properly, won't increase the amount of money, and while it may increase the velocity of money, it will do so in a way where any income bump to the poor gives them more money. Are you saying we shouldn't give the poor more money, that is the problem!
Now, admittedly, some industries suffer from market failures. Stuff like healthcare, education, and potentially housing. Healthcare and education should be addressed separately which is why I support medicare for all/universal healthcare and free public college.
As for housing, this is the big one. The common go to of leftists is any additional money will be eaten up by landlords. Well, this ignores that competition does exist. You can't just raise rent $1000 because someone gets an additional $1000 a month. You still have to compete against other landlords. And if the housing market in a particular area like say NYC or San Francisco is so broken that yes, the demand is so high that rent prices just spiral upward, I'm not going to be overly sympathetic. I mean, just move. You're not going to be able to afford downtown Manhattan on a UBI. Sorry, you're not. You're going to have to settle for somewhere cheaper. And hopefully this will drive people out of those areas as they're no longer there trying to get scarce jobs as much, meaning that they can go elsewhere.
Ricardo's law of rent is why those cities are so expensive, and rent is often proportionally high to its distance from the centers of commerce. That said I'm going to insist that if people cannot afford rent in a high rent area, they move.
But still, across the entire economy, UBI isn't going to greatly increase inflation, because it's not going to greatly increase income. Many people will be better off, but considering how it will be funded with taxation and reductions in other services, it will be kept in check. We're not just giving people $1k a month without any thought to the consequences.
Which brings me to the next argument...
UBI is regressive!
You can't win with left wing anti UBI guys. They argue that UBI is inflationary as if you're just giving out free money without redistributing it from somewhere, but then when we talk about funding UBI and replacing stuff, all of the sudden these same people are like, "NO, DON'T DO THAT!!!11!"
As we know from my funding exercises, we can't fund an entire $3.6 trillion UBI from taxing the rich alone. It requires broad based taxes to fund, and potential welfare cuts. They claim this is unfair to the poor. For example, they often argue against Yang's 10% VAT because the VAT is a "regressive" tax, meaning that the poor feel it more than the rich, as the rich invest their money and the poor spend it. Because it taxes the poor, it's unfair. It's "regressive". Instead, we need "progressive" taxes that tax the rich to redistribute to the poor.
Well, you can't fund UBI that way. I'm sorry. The fact is when you put that much money in the economy you have to remove it from somewhere else. And that 10% tax is a form of clawback mechanism. You need to get the money back you're spending on UBI somehow. Any social program will do this. They all have clawback mechanisms. Heck, most have mechanisms far harsher than a 10-20% tax. Many involve strict income cutoffs that amount to welfare cliffs or clawbacks much higher than 20%.
These guys also ignore how much this UBI offsets that tax, and how beneficial it is. Under Yang's plan, anyone making under $120,000 is going to be a net beneficiary from UBI. Families with two adults benefit up to $240,000. That's how much money you need to earn to pay back that tax.
My plan is similar, but more aggressive on taxation as I don't believe Yang's tax is enough and his deficit would be funded with deficit spending. But even under my plan, you would need to earn $66,000 as an individual to pay in. You would need a couple earning $132,000 to do it. These are not low incomes. My ideas would help the poor and the middle class in net.
Greg Mankiw, an economics professor at Harvard, mentioned an interesting "dilemma" regarding this subject, which made it into Guy Standing's recent book about basic income (Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen, p. 72):
Consider an economy in which average income is $50,000 but with much income inequality. To provide a social safety net, two possible policies are proposed. Which would you prefer?
— A universal transfer of $10,000 to every person, financed by a 20-percent flat tax on income.
— A means-tested transfer of $10,000. The full amount goes to someone without any income. The transfer is then phased out: You lose 20 cents of it for every dollar of income you earn. These transfers are financed by a tax of 20 percent on income above $50,000.
I have seen smart people argue as follows: Policy A is crazy. Why should Bill Gates get a government transfer? He doesn’t need it, and we would need to raise more taxes to pay for it. Policy B is more progressive. It targets the transfer to those who really need it, and the transfer is financed by a smaller tax increase levied only on those with above-average incomes. But here is the rub. The two policies are equivalent. If you look at the net payment (taxes less transfers), everyone is exactly the same under the two plans. The difference is only a matter of framing.
I've seen the same thing, and this is the heart of the "regressive" argument. These guys will scream over a tax, when many of their conditional aid programs do the same thing and worse. They'll claim that the first scenario ain't fair because rich people get it, because it taxes the poor, etc. But that's the thing. They're the same thing. Yes, Bill Gates gets a UBI. He's also paying 20% of his income into the UBI program, which is millions, if not billions of dollars. So what's the problem?
UBI IS progressive. It would raise millions out of poverty while increasing their freedom. But, progressives get so wrapped up on framing they end up defending backwards conditional safety nets with horrid clawback schemes, bureaucracy, means testing, etc., all because the structure of UBI is deemed "not progressive" simply because it taxes the poor and gives money to the rich, ignoring the net effects.
Speaking of which...
But but, UBI will destroy welfare!
A common argument against basic income is it threatens the the traditional welfare state. I kind of sympathize with this. Right wing basic incomes are a trojan horse that would make people worse off. Eliminating the entire safety net for a $500 check is insane. But, generally speaking though? if we could get a good UBI and it "destroys welfare", then good riddance. Welfare sucks. It isn't that generous, it provides heavily means tested benefits with strict restrictions like work requirements, drug testing, and lifetime limits, and you often have to go through a humiliating byzantine bureaucracy just to get and maintain benefits. It's no way to treat people, and no way to live if you're on it.
I admit, some programs should remain, as they do things UBI can't do, and are sometimes more generous than what UBI offers. Stuff like healthcare, social security for seniors and the disabled, perhaps section 8 housing, etc. But at the same time, many programs can go.
SNAP, a common staple that "progressives" defend, only offers a $204 maximum benefit for one, $680 for a family of four, and has an insanely complex formula to determine actual benefits levels.
Meanwhile my UBI is $1100 a month for one, and anywhere from $2300-4400 for a family of four.
Yang's offers $1000 per adult, meaning we're talking $1-4k depending on adults in a household.
TANF offers between $299-1086 for a family of three depending on state.
My UBI plan offers $1900-3300.
Yang's offers $1000-3000.
SSI offers $794 for one person, and $1191 for a couple.
My UBI plan offers $1100 for one and $2200 for 2.
Yang's offers $1000 for 1 and $2000 for 2.
It gets worse, Scott Santens already discussed the problems with welfare other than just the raw amounts, like how many eligible people don't get it. I admit, some aspects of welfare you don't want to get rid of, and that's why I don't get rid of all of them. I understand how section 8, or medicaid are necessary and UBI can't replace them. At the same time many of these programs don't help those they're supposed to help, and even worse tend to impose ridiculous restrictions on people for the privilege. In some places only 7% of those eligible get TANF, only 24% get section 8, etc. The welfare state is failing people. Yet progressives defend it.
Now, admittedly, Yang's approach to it was more controversial to it than mine. He did this lazy thing of "well if you like your welfare benefits you can keep them" but those who did would not get UBI or would get less. He eased up on this through the campaign allowing some exceptions for social security beneficiaries or given his support for universal healthcare, possibly medicaid, but it was an approach that got some controversy. But given how much people get, how many people don't get it, and how many people hate welfare, isn't a UBI going to be better for most?
If anything, that's what these "progressives" fear. That UBI will be so popular, that these specialized programs won't be there for those who need them because they'll be so popular that they will lose funding. While I don't really support outright cutting larger or nonredundant ones, of the ones I mentioned above, is anything of value lost here? Seriously.
I don't get it. These "progressives" just have this idea that their programs are better, and while that might be true for a minority of people, for a vast overwhelming majority, my plan is definitely better, and Yang's is probably better. So why be against UBI?
UBI isn't generous enough
I already addressed this, but generally speaking, yeah, yeah it is. I've dealt with this in other articles, but raising UBI above the $1000-1200 a month mark is going to be difficult, if not impossible, and require taxes and cause perverse disincentives that could implode the economy.
I admit Yang's plan has weaknesses. It not having any benefits for children is problematic in my opinion. But even then, it seems to help many people more than welfare would.
It's better than most of the traditional safety net. You could admit unemployment, at an average benefit of $387 a week minus the pandemic stuff, is a bit more than a benefit of one, which amounts to closer to $254, but assuming UBI stacks in families, UBI quickly becomes better. And even then, under my plan, I would maintain some aspects of unemployment, and Yang would allow people to choose.
Social security is probably the big one that is flat out better. It's $1390 on average between SSDI and SSRI. And it can go much higher. That's why I barely touch that. And that's also why Yang conceded and allowed social security to not count against UBI. So I don't see the problem. UBI is basically just social security for all.
I can see how, in the case of the most generous safety nets, and among fringe cases, welfare can help more, but UBI is gonna help more in most cases. That's why I only eliminated the largest safety nets and only trimmed the others, and why Yang allowed people to choose. I sought to eliminate redundancy, and Yang sought to give people choice. Any UBI advocate worth his salt is going to give you a better deal or at least a choice. No, UBI isn't intended as a right wing trojan horse to screw people. Unless you're dealing with right wingers.
The real problem with Yang...
I guess the big reason UBI gets so much crap is because of Yang being not a pure leftie. Outside of UBI he's a fairly standard democrat, which tends to upset progressives, being caught between the Yang gang and the progressive movement, I get it. I personally seek to meld the two. But it's hard when the left is ripping on UBI and Yang unfairly.
But on UBI, the dude means well. He just has a different way of doing things. And here's his big issue. The dude is inexperienced, and makes policy choices that can only be described as "lazy." He didn't want to think about cutting the safety nets, so he gave people a choice, but then that ended up having unforeseen consequences, so he backtracked later.
We're seeing the same behavior with Israel. He made an ignorant comment and is now walking it back.
Yang isn't a politician. He's inexperienced, and sometimes he doesn't know what he's saying or talking about. He says things, without thinking them through, and that gets him in trouble. And that's why his UBI plan has issues at times. These issues are taken as a sign of malice by the progressive movement, but really, it's ignorance. The dude is ignorant. He needs to learn. And that's why I'm patient with him. I see potential with him. I like his core ideology. But he needs to flesh that crap out and educate himself. It's why I support his Mayoral run. I want to see him get experience so he can actually be more seasoned and know how to do policy. Yang doesn't know how to do policy. And he wavers because of that.
I'd like to apologize on progressives on the behalf of Yang, but I don't want to speak for him either. But yeah. That's my interpretation. Not a bad guy. Not looking to screw poor people. His ideas are just taken in the worst context. He means well, he's just a bit ignorant at times. Help him, without attacking him.
Conclusion
Look, UBI is one of the best political ideas I've ever heard of. It's why I'm so hardcore about it. I believe it has the strength of potentially dozens of traditional policies. It's a safety net. It's a right of citizenship. It's freedom from bondage. It can replace so many policies of the traditional regulatory state and do a better job in the process. It's not something progressives should be against, but for. Progressives against it just sound like irrational conservatives defending a broken system because it exists and they like it for some reason, without realizing its potential. UBI isn't a trojan horse when done right. It's our best hope for the future. And I would really appreciate not dealing with all of the dishonest, hacky arguments from the left. It just alienates me from my fellow progressives and lefties.
No comments:
Post a Comment