Okay, so I've been discussing a lot of UBI plans lately, and I've been realizing that I really don't have an objectivish metric by which to judge them. If I'm going to continue, I'm going to need to make my own metric for judging these plans.
This metric will be out of 100 points. I've identified 5 categories I want to judge on, which seem to represent more grievances I have against most UBI plans I look at. That said, let's take a look.
Is it really a UBI? (20)- I want to look at whether a UBI plan I look at it actually a true UBI plan, as in, unconditional cash transfer to all citizens over the age of 18 regardless of income situation or employment status. Contrast this from an NIT, which mirrors a UBI while being essentially opt in means tested welfare, or a tax credit or something. I'll give full credit for a UBI, half for an NIT, and less than half for anything else.
The amount (20)- UBI should end poverty, and an ideal UBI would be above the poverty line. I will look at how close a UBI plan is to the poverty line, giving full credit above and partial below. I will also look at whether any supplements are given to children. 3/4 of this metric will focus on the adult UBI, and 1/4 will focus on children.
Is progressive (20)- We hear complaints about UBI all the time. It eliminates welfare, it make the poor worse off than before, blah blah blah. I'll be looking at if a UBI plan actually makes the poor better off and whether it's progressive. A UBI should ideally make the poor better off, and it should ideally not affect the middle class either way. It also should not impose any onerous requirements on individuals that eat into their UBI. Replacing some welfare or tax credits with UBI is fine, but the benefit has to be positive. Also, I will be looking at the tax scheme for a UBI plan in question to determine if the taxation/clawback is flat or progressive vs outright regressive.
The numbers work (20)- UBI plans need to work. The numbers need to add up. They need to function. Funding the UBI should be accounted for, and any holes in funding will show up here.
Will this UBI give people the ability to say no? (20)- Does this UBI give people real freedom or the power to say no? This is a paramount ideological concern of mine, and I plan on emphasizing it in my metrics.
At the end of this, we will have a score out of 100. I'll be grading these proposals on a traditional A-F scale as you would see in school. So:
A: 90-100
B: 80-89
C: 70-79
D: 60-69
F: 0-59
With all of that said, let's test the plans I've previously covered.
My own plan
Yes, my plan is a full on UBI as per my definition. 20/20
My UBI, as of 2021, offers an adult benefit of $13,200 and a child benefit of $4,800. This is slightly above the poverty line. 20/20
My UBI is intended to not be regressive on the poor and to leave the poor better off than they are now. It also ensures middle class people are not greatly affected either way. Mostly the top 20-30% pay in net under my plan. Taxes for UBI are flat, but given the already existing tax structure, amounts to progressive taxation ranging from 26-30% or so on the low end to around 56-60% on the high end. Any regressiveness found will be quickly modified if reasonable to improve it. 20/20
While I strongly attempt to make my UBI numbers work, I recognize I'm a relative amateur and there are people more qualified than I at making it work. Therefore I acknowledge despite my best efforts my numbers might not be practical in practice. Still, it's a very good attempt as a proof of concept. 17/20
I mean it's my UBI, of course it conforms with my own principles and theory of justice, and I obviously wanna give people freedom as the power to say no. 20/20.
That said, I give my own plan a 97/100, which is an A+. Kind of tautological, but I'm just trying to set a benchmark here so people know what I'm looking for in future plans.
Andrew Yang's UBI plan
Andrew Yang's plan...is a true UBI plan...mostly. He does have this weird thing where you can forgo UBI for other aid, but assuming you're not on said other aid, you're gonna get it. I don't like this specific aspect of his plan, as it's not truly universal, but other than that it mostly is. 15/20
Yang's plan offers a UBI of $12000 a year per adult, with no benefit to children. This is slightly below the poverty line, and without an adequate child benefit, it tends to not really be enough to keep families above the poverty line. 14/20
Yang's plan gets a lot of crap for being regressive, but it isnt THAT bad. The 10% VAT is the least of its problems. I dislike the fact that it removed the standard deduction, and I later removed that aspect from my own plan. Doing that imposes much higher taxes on the poor, in addition to the VAT. And Yang does kind of have this weird, harsh approach to welfare which doesn't make a ton of sense to me. And without a child benefit, I'm not entirely sure many people would be left better off than welfare in some cases. It's a progressive plan in some ways, but it needs a lot of improvements. Still to my knowledge he leaves the child tax credit and EITC in place so that's something. 14/20
Yang's funding numbers are often questionable. He VAT makes sense, many budget cuts make sense, but theres a whole trillion dollars or so of him just assuming economic growth or flat out funding this via deficit spending. This is kind of problematic. Still, he accounts for over half of his plan properly, so I'll grade based on that. 12/20
Yang's plan should give many people the ability to say no, not just to any job, but all jobs, but in failing to provide a child benefit, it could keep parents chained to the labor force. 14/20
Yang's plan is obviously flawed. I think I read somewhere Scott Santens talked to him at some point about it? I can see how, looking at Scott's plan, Yang modified it to make it his own. However, he stripped out a lot of good elements out of that plan, leading to a pretty iffy mess with fuzzy numbers, and putting some people in awkward situations. I don't believe his plan harms people as much as he says it does, because people can opt out of it if they want to keep their current benefits, and most people probably would opt into UBI instead, but honestly, it needs improvement. Regardless, his plan is progressive, it does provide a much needed alternative to welfare, and it could quite frankly be improved fairly easily.
That said, Yang's overall rating here is a 69/100. This is a D+. This is a bit lower than I expected, but not too far away, as my original C- rating would be 70-72 or so. D makes sense as it means not failing, but also "needs improvement".
To offer improvements, he needs to make the funding work better, add a smaller child benefit, and work out the whole welfare vs UBI thing a bit better.
Allan Sheahan's UBI plan
Allan Sheahan is a UBI advocate who has floated a UBI plan before.
His UBI plan seems to be a true UBI plan, 20/20
His numbers were $10,000 per adult and $2,000 per child in 2006, which amounts to $13,247/$2,649 now. The adult benefit is adequate but the child benefit is a bit low and may not keep all families out of poverty. Still, given my metric, I give him an 18/20 here.
Most of his funding cuts seem to involve removing welfare and existing tax credits. To some extent, this seems a bit harsh and regressive at times, as he removes things I wouldn't otherwise remove. This might put some people in a worse position than they are today. Still, most of these things shouldn't be needed given the progressiveness of his UBI itself. Still, I gotta knock points off here. 12/20
His funding mechanisms seem adequate. 20/20
I believe his UBI would largely free people from coerced participation in the labor force and give them the ability to say no. 20/20
All in all, this proposal gets a 90/100, which is an A-. It's a solid proposal. Also, to be fair, his UBI-FIT alternative would likely get a similar score. Maybe a little lower as it would cut social programs too much while not raising taxes on the rich at all.
New School's Proposal
I also looked at the New School's "basic income" proposal recently. To go down the checklist.
These guys act like they were somehow innovative coming up with an NIT/EITC proposal instead of a true UBI proposal. So it's an NIT. 10/20
The amount is $12,500 for adults and $4500 for children. This is just short of the poverty line. 19/20
It is fairly regressive, having a phase out that amounts to 32-46%, much higher than just imposing a flat tax of around 18-20% on people like I would support. The poor would effectively "pay" the brunt of it. Still, they don't really eliminate welfare, which is a good thing. 14/20
They don't explain how they plan on raising the net cost of $876 billion. 12/20
It theoretically does, in its current form, give people the power to say no. I question, given its NIT nature, if this freedom will last, but it does appear to do so on paper, so I'll give them credit for that. 15/20
Huh, I didn't expect to be as harsh on this plan. I actually kind of liked it. But, I did set up my metrics a certain way, and it was judged harshly, getting a 68/100, meaning it gets a D+. This is largely due to the ambiguities of the funding mechanisms. This might not be fair on my part as this seems to be an oversight on their part that they didn't concern themselves with, but it is what it is. Had they showed how they would fund that $876 billion, they would get a 78/100, which is a C+ instead. That seems far more fair.
Still, contrasting this with Sheahan's proposal, I can clearly see why I favor that one. I really don't like NIT plans much lol.
Oshan Jarow's NIT proposal
Oshan Jarrow has a NIT proposal worth looking into.
First of all, it's an NIT, not a true UBI. 10/20
Second, it has a robust adult benefit of $13,000, but the child benefit doesn't exist. This would keep some families in poverty. 15/20
It has a 33% clawback rate, nearly identical to the adult benefit of the new school plan for a single adult, but more progressive for households. And they do try to remove the EITC too, which, without a child benefit, is not really a good thing. And there's still the opportunity for more taxation on the poor on top of this NIT. It does come off as potentially regressive. 13/20
Unlike the new school's proposal, they offer ways to pay for the rest of the program beyond the NIT part, and the mechanisms are fairly solid. 20/20
It would give people the freedom as the power to say no, although much like other NIT proposals, I fear potential future sabotage of these ideas. Also, it does not offer a child benefit which might keep some people chained to the labor force. 10/20
All in all, because this one had a proper funding mechanism, I can grade it more fairly than the New School's proposal. I give it a 68/100, which is a D+. Contrasting it with the new school proposal, the lack of a child benefit hurt it a lot. Really, seems to be a common theme. Lack of child benefit doesn't keep people out of poverty, not keeping people out of poverty undermines the ability to say no. EITC/NIT models also don't strongly protect the ability to say no and I see them as open to attack by future administrations. All of these metrics are intended to be separate and distinct from each other, but they do end up overlapping and screwing over plans that use an NIT/EITC framework, and plans that lack a child benefit.
Scott Santens' Proposal
Finally, I'll look at Scott Santens' proposal again in this context.
First of all, he offers a true UBI. 20/20
Second, he offers a proposal of $13,266/$4598, which at the time was 110% of the poverty line, and was offset by a 10% VAT. This means he intended his plan to keep people at the poverty line exactly. 20/20
Third, his plan isn't regressive, but I do question the LVT aspect of his plan. While land ownership is correlated with wealth, it's not a perfect correlation and problems can exist due to that. Some people who are actually poor could end up paying more in taxes than they really should. I don't like this aspect of this proposal. 15/20
His funding mechanisms work well. I do have some questions about a few things, but ultimately, it's solid. 17/20
And for the final part, I must once again come back to the LVT. LVT is a tax on existence. UBI is money for existing. While UBI theoretically cancels out LVT for most, it also does not necessarily give people a UBI that gives then the ability to say no. I know Scott, deep down, probably believes in the freedom as the right to say no. But this proposal won't give some people a full UBI. LVT taxes people based on land ownership. This is seen as "efficient" by economists because rather than taxing, and thus, disincentivizing labor, LVT is a tax people must pay regardless of income. But...in order to acquire income to pay the taxes, it must come out of the UBI, or it could force people back into the labor force. And if it does come out of a UBI, it pushes people back into the labor force regardless because that UBI should be going toward basic needs. That said, this proposal does not do a good job by this metric, and it doesn't fit my particular theory of justice here. 10/20
All in all, this means Scott's plan gets an 82/100, which is a B-. A lot lower than I really wanna give it, but again, LVT.
Biden's child tax credit proposal
Finally, I'll look at Biden's child tax credit proposal to give an example of what a non-UBI but UBI like policy can look on a smaller scale.
It's basically an EITC and it's not universal at all, even by that standard. It excludes adults, and families making above $150k. It only gives partial benefits between $75-150k. EITC = half credit. Children only = 1/4 of that. The means testing = 3/4 of that. So we get 2/20
It doesn't really keep families out of poverty on its own much at all. Children only = 1/4 credit. And the amount there is at most $3600, which is 4/5 of what the poverty line should be for such a UBI proposal. That said, 4/20
I mean, it's not really regressive, it doesn't eliminate other programs or impose onerous taxes on the poor. 20/20
It's well funded, so, 20/20
It doesn't really free anyone from wage labor at all. Maybe secondary earners in some situations, but other than that, no, not really. 2/20
All in all, this gets a 48/100, which is an F. I mean given below 60 is an F, this does deserve an F. But this does show an issue with my metric. If you merely have any sort of progressive proposal and fund it properly, you get 40 points. You can literally fail on every other level, but you'll still get 40 just for that. Given I was giving actual NIT proposals and even Yang's proposal in the 67-72 range, this seems...generous. I mean those guys far more based proposals despite their flaws, but I only mustered a C-/D+, yet here Biden gets 48 for doing...next to nothing? It's a flaw with my approach. But at the same time, perhaps that's not a bad thing. Biden's proposal still failed, as it was supposed to. I just didn't expect it to get so high. Oh well, that's the problem with metrics in general. They measure what you want them to measure, and sometimes that can backfire.
Overall opinion of this metric
Eh, this metric is adequate for now, but I might adjust it in the future. I feel like the 5 categories are actually pretty solid. And all of them do deserve some consideration. But, I tend to wonder if the weighting is off. Some are redundant and proposals suffer in multiple categories if they tend to do certain things wrong. NIT proposals are especially harshly judged under my metric, as they 1) aren't a real UBI (-10), often end up having regressive aspects of the proposal (-6-8), and I question whether they really give people the freedom to say no (-5). So simply by having an EITC/NIT, you end up with a ceiling of roughly 80/100 just because. Not having a child benefit can also cause significant cascading issues by these metrics. They undermine the ability to keep people out of poverty (-5), which undermines the ability to say no (-5). And sometimes these proposals also eliminate EITC/child tax credit to fund them too, and this is a double whammy. You can lose 15 points just for that.
At the same time merely having a functional proposal that barely does anything, like Biden's tax credit, gets a 48. There are people with real UBIs who I knock down to 70 over relative minutae, and Biden gets a 48, for having a proposal that's objectively a fraction as good as the worst proposals I looked at.
Even Scott's proposal got knocked down to an 85 simply for adding an LVT that I didn't like.
That said, I might need to adjust the weighting on these metrics. Or at least not apply these metrics to obvious non-UBI plans. To be fair the metric did do its job. Biden's plan wasn't a real UBI by any stretch, wouldnt solve poverty on its own at all, and doesn't do much to guarantee freedom as the power to say no, so it did get a failing grade based on that. But seriously, give $3600 to kids and you get a 48? Meanwhile the dude who gave $12000 to adults got a 69? To be fair Yang kind of undermined himself by failing to address a $1 trillion hole in his proposal so that's fair. Had he worked the funding out better, he would get a 77, so maybe that is fair. Why should I forgive someone who fails to address how they fund their proposal properly? The proposals that didn't do this would be Cs or even Bs if they did. So perhaps all things being equal the metric is good. I really don't want to change the weighting too much. If I dropped the whole "not a real UBI" thing for NITs, something like Biden's EITC might score even higher. I dont want to not look at funding viability. You could have a crap plan that's deficit funded and get a good rating otherwise. And adjusting the ratings could have pros and cons. So perhaps Yang did deserve a D+, perhaps Santens did deserve a B, NIT proposals do deserve Cs, and hey, Biden got an F so what am I complaining about?
When I think about how to adjust the metrics all I could think of is being slightly more forgiving to NIT plans. Should I give them 10/20 or 12-16/20? They definitely aren't pure UBIs, but they do often take a form that mimics them almost perfectly. Still, theoretically an NIT should be able to get an 85 if it does things well as it is. Perhaps it is these plans that just failed at that. I don't believe an NIT deserves an A. I just don't. Still, something to think about.
Regardless, it's a metric, and it works, it just needs some potential fine tuning.
No comments:
Post a Comment