Hacker News Reader

Comment by DonaldFisk | Hacker News Reader

> There is really one ultimate question here: "Is this the best use of our tax dollars?". Not: "Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?".

There have been numerous pilot studies, e.g. those listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income . The problem is that opponents of UBI invariably point out that as only some people received it, and only for a limited time, that it wasn't universal, or that it took place in in some other country, or decades ago, so it doesn't apply in their country, or today.

> Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services, the health-care system,etc.

Its purpose is to ensure that everyone has their basic financial needs met, not to provide those particular government services.

View on HN

Perhaps not police departments, but proponents do claim it reduces the stress on social programs. If it allows people to put money where it's needed, then they might need those programs less. An ounce of prevention and all that.

> Its purpose is to ensure that everyone has their basic financial needs met, not to provide those particular government services.

The government is run by the people. If it increases cost to tax payers over all then the tax payers (people/voters) have every right to oppose this. Even social security alone (for elderly people who can't care for themselves) is untenable, the government has been borrowing from social security funds for decades. Many millennials are at risk of paying for SS their whole lives only to find it can't actually support them at their old age. UBI doesn't make sense at-cost.

The reasonable arguments I've heard state that homelessness, crime, medical cost and similar things will have reduced cost, in which case, sure, why not. But there are a long list of things that need funding long before UBI, if it is at-cost. Another good example is minimum wage, does it make sense to have such a low federal minimum wage and impose UBI on top of that?

> If it increases cost to tax payers over all then the tax payers (people/voters) have every right to oppose this.

They should be informed. There are various proposals (this one is new to me), and issues with it which are still unclear. And there's a lot of misinformation from people ideologically opposed to UBI.

For some people, UBI would replace existing benefits (examples of which might include child benefit, unemployment benefit, student grant, the non-contributory part of old age pension). That doesn't cost anything. Reduction of bureaucracy (no further need for means-testing the benefits UBI would replace) actually saves money. People already earning an income would of course pay extra taxes to fund UBI, but they would also receive it, so that would just be redistribution with no net cost. That leaves only people not seeking work, e.g. those looking after their children but not claiming any benefits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com