Isn't the question "Why should we pay a basic income" instead of "Why should we receive"? No amount of "should receive" can balance zero amount of "should pay". The ones that pay are the ones that need convincing.<p>Unless both amounts are zero: zero reasons to pay and zero reasons to receive is a fine solution.
The one thing I don't get about the Basic Income push is . . . what will be done about inflation? With more and more money chasing the same amount of resources, goods, and services, basic income would push up the overall price-level and undo itself by pricing out those who live at the basic income level<p>. . . am I missing something?
Basic Income is a completely broken mental model. Some reasons:<p>1) Inflation.<p>The minute that $1000 hits your bank account, it will be worth less than you think. Every social services program struggles with this fact.<p><a href="http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/09/it-was-obsolete-before-we-opened.html" rel="nofollow">http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/09/it-was-obsol...</a><p>2. Human Nature.<p>Everyone who writes these articles assumes that people are inherently good and would make better decisions if freed from the evils of needing to earn a paycheck. History tells us otherwise.<p><a href="http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/10/ancient-wisdom-tells-us-idle-hands-are.html" rel="nofollow">http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/10/ancient-wisd...</a><p>3. History tells us this does not work.<p>We have tried some version of this before. It works fine at the "testing" stage where some small-ish group of committed, idealistic people come together and decide to share and share alike. The minute it is opened up to the general public and ALL people, no matter how badly they behave, are ENTITLED to their share, it falls apart.<p><a href="http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/01/ubi-we-tried-this-before-and-its.html" rel="nofollow">http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/01/ubi-we-tried...</a><p>I could go on. And I have:<p><a href="http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2017/01/industrial-revolution-2-electronic.html" rel="nofollow">http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2017/01/industrial-r...</a><p><a href="http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/p/ir2.html" rel="nofollow">http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/p/ir2.html</a>
UBI does not directly address drug use, mental health, indebtedness, or homelessness. The idea that you can solve poverty by giving "free" money to individuals who can not spend wisely while at the same time eliminating nutritional and mental health programs can only have bad results.
I really wish the notion that wealth equals income would die. I too believed that the distribution of income is what our problem is in our economy. But after learning how real economics works it doesn't matter how much money goes where. What matters is production. Remember currency has no actual value unless something is being produced. If money is redistributed in one area you are not producing anything. What you are doing is reallocating production from one business sector to another. Recall the barter system, which worked for thousands of years. You are exchanging your product/service for something else. Currency is a means to divide out production.
As far as inflation goes: think of money as a signalling mechanism, not as a reserve of wealth. This is true for the wealthy, and as the marginal cost of producing goods drops, it becomes true for more and more of the population. When factories can more flexibly adjust production, you'll find increased demand for, say, iPhones, and decreased demand for, say, TVs, will shift production and damp the price inflation.<p>Secondly, consider that an economy without a UBI yet with mass unemployment will suffer a liquidity trap. This is a more efficient way to fight that than QE (which I'm not criticizing as it was the best tool available for the times)
Yuval Harari makes a good point: when it's said that "we" should "all" have a "universal" basic income, aren't people actually talking about a national basic income? Is the US or Norway going to provide a basic income to people in Bangladesh? Or Iraq?<p>Harari discusses this in his book "Homo Deus". You can also see him discuss it here: <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=szt7f5NmE9E" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=szt7f5NmE9E</a>
What I really don't get is, why do everyone advocate for universal basic income, instead of a negative income tax.<p>The negative income tax model achieves the same basic income with less negative motivation for people who want to pursue work at the low-end.<p>It also avoids wastefully paying it to people who don't need it.<p>This is my inspiration : <a href="https://youtu.be/xtpgkX588nM" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/xtpgkX588nM</a>